Why rely on Sola Scriptura when...?

[curtishouse30]

This is a question that has remained stuck in my head for years now and I’m wondering if any Protestants or Catholics alike can shine some light into their perspective.

For Protestants who rely on Sola Scriptura, how can it be since they do not even rely on the whole Bible? Even if they don’t read out of the “Catholic Bible”, the first versions of the KJV had all 73 books in there as well. It wasn’t until centuries later when Luther, et al, decided to rip books out of the Bible that they settled on the 66 books in the Bible. It seems more like a select version of Sola Scriptura more than anything. What happens when other churches pop up and don’t like other certain books in the Bible? Wouldn’t they have the same authority as Luther to remove those books out of the Bible as well?

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

Usually when people do not agree about the interpretation of the Bible usually new denominations are formed. Without Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, what a scary world… There be dragons here!

Little One0307

 

[CEM5]

This is a question that has remained stuck in my head for years now and I’m wondering if any Protestants or Catholics alike can shine some light into their perspective.

For Protestants who rely on Sola Scriptura, how can it be since they do not even rely on the whole Bible? Even if they don’t read out of the “Catholic Bible”, the first versions of the KJV had all 73 books in there as well. It wasn’t until centuries later when Luther, et al, decided to rip books out of the Bible that they settled on the 66 books in the Bible. It seems more like a select version of Sola Scriptura more than anything. What happens when other churches pop up and don’t like other certain books in the Bible? Wouldn’t they have the same authority as Luther to remove those books out of the Bible as well?

hi curtishouse30,

Sola Scriptura is not even in the Bible, so that alone negates their theory/doctrine of the bible alone.

The Good News was proclaimed (spoken aloud by mouth) just as Christ commanded, and this spoken word is still how the gospels are shared every day in the Catholic Mass. Before the written word there was the oral teachings, and in the Catholic faith they go hand-in-hand.

It is a shame the Protestants don’t really even uphold their Sola Scriptura, for in the Bible it teaches that disagreements are taken to the Church as the final word. It also says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible also says to listen to and obey the Bishops…and the list goes on.

Blessings,
CEM

 

[po18guy]

This is a question that has remained stuck in my head for years now and I’m wondering if any Protestants or Catholics alike can shine some light into their perspective.

For Protestants who rely on Sola Scriptura, how can it be since they do not even rely on the whole Bible? Even if they don’t read out of the “Catholic Bible”, the first versions of the KJV had all 73 books in there as well. It wasn’t until centuries later when Luther, et al, decided to rip books out of the Bible that they settled on the 66 books in the Bible. It seems more like a select version of Sola Scriptura more than anything. What happens when other churches pop up and don’t like other certain books in the Bible? Wouldn’t they have the same authority as Luther to remove those books out of the Bible as well?

Even the 66 book edited bible tells us, in many places, that it is incomplete as to revelation (i.e. Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34). Since God’s word is living (Hebrews 4:12, 1 Peter 1:23), and God’s word does not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11), where is the living word that was not recorded in the bible? It is eternal, and so it exists somewhere…

 

[SunshineZA]

This is a question that has remained stuck in my head for years now and I’m wondering if any Protestants or Catholics alike can shine some light into their perspective.

For Protestants who rely on Sola Scriptura, how can it be since they do not even rely on the whole Bible? Even if they don’t read out of the “Catholic Bible”, the first versions of the KJV had all 73 books in there as well. It wasn’t until centuries later when Luther, et al, decided to rip books out of the Bible that they settled on the 66 books in the Bible. It seems more like a select version of Sola Scriptura more than anything. What happens when other churches pop up and don’t like other certain books in the Bible? Wouldn’t they have the same authority as Luther to remove those books out of the Bible as well?

Re Holy Scripture: Although off thread, I wish to point out that no Catholic Bible exists for Catholics who speak Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, Matabele, South Sotho, North Sotho or Swazi - would you be equally concerned that we all HAVE TO READ according to you FAULTY PROTESTANT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS? Just a question

 

[Muze]

This is a question that has remained stuck in my head for years now and I’m wondering if any Protestants or Catholics alike can shine some light into their perspective.

For Protestants who rely on Sola Scriptura, how can it be since they do not even rely on the whole Bible? Even if they don’t read out of the “Catholic Bible”, the first versions of the KJV had all 73 books in there as well. It wasn’t until centuries later when Luther, et al, decided to rip books out of the Bible that they settled on the 66 books in the Bible. It seems more like a select version of Sola Scriptura more than anything. What happens when other churches pop up and don’t like other certain books in the Bible? Wouldn’t they have the same authority as Luther to remove those books out of the Bible as well?

Um… Luther was around in the 1500s. The KJV was assembled in the 1600s. So, you might want to get a few facts straight.

Furthermore, the apocrypha has always been viewed as “Deuterocanon”, or second canon, with less importance with respect to doctrine (its use is devotional), so there isn’t a problem with skipping over them.

 

[po18guy]

Um… Luther was around in the 1500s. The KJV was assembled in the 1600s. So, you might want to get a few facts straight.

Furthermore, the apocrypha has always been viewed as “Deuterocanon”, or second canon, with less importance with respect to doctrine (its use is devotional), so there isn’t a problem with skipping over them.

Hey, cut a little slack, will ya’? The point he makes is still clear, and valid. The “Luther Bibel” of 1545 had the deuterocanon between the OT and NT. Actually, it had a total of 81 books in it! Only later, were they excluded by some self-appointed authority. Let’s also note here, for the sake of clarity, that the deuterocanon has always been sacred scripture in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Point is, why rely on ‘sola scriptura’ when:

1. The bible does not teach it.
2. It fosters disagreement.
3. The bible tells us (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others) that it is incomplete.

Since no authority outside of the self is involved with interpretation, SS throws the door to the ego wide open. Like it or not, it has lead to the widespread doctrinal disagreement that we see today. Well, the bible is “sufficient” many say. Maybe, maybe not.

JWs have the bible. Is it sufficient for them? They deny Jesus’ divinity based on scripture alone.

Is it sufficient for the Mormons? They deny Jesus’ divinity and seek to be gods themselves, citing the KJV.

Oneness Pentecostals deny the trinity based on the bible alone.

The Seventh-Day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel (a created being) , based on the bible alone.

Can all of this be true? Can any of it?

Or, does scripture need authoritative interpretation? According to Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:29-35, yes it does. So, from where does that authority come from, who has it, and how do they get it? Hint: It does not come from the bible. The bible is not an authority, but speaks of authority.

 

[jbeck43]

Um… Luther was around in the 1500s. The KJV was assembled in the 1600s. So, you might want to get a few facts straight.

Furthermore, the apocrypha has always been viewed as “Deuterocanon”, or second canon, with less importance with respect to doctrine (its use is devotional), so there isn’t a problem with skipping over them.

The Septuagint, which contains the the deuterocanon, was the primary Scripture text quoted in the new testament, which both Protestants and Catholics agree on. It was quoted nearly three hundred times. The councils of Carthage and Hippo, in 382 and 396 confirmed these books as part of the canon of Scripture, which was later confirmed by the general council of Trent because Luther challenged it. It was always considered scripture until Luther decided he didn’t like the second book of Maccabbess for confirming the belief that “it was a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins,” 2 Macc 12:46–a clear reference to the doctrine of Purgatory. He then, in order to justify this omission, appealed to the Jewish Sects (rabbinical) of his time that also excluded Maccabees by excluding six other books as well that they excluded because there were was no evidence according to them that they were written in Hebrew–except that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, some of these texts, which dated to the time of Christ and not available to Luther nor to those Rabbinal scholars most certainly did contain the Hebrew texts of some excluded books, such as Tobit. In the second cave of Qumran, the “works of the law” document also confirmed the Catholic understanding of works of Jewish law, contrary to Luther’s understating that “works” referred to by Paul in Romans simply referred to good works in general. To state it simply, the status of the deuterocanon was never in question until Luther challenged it with an appeal to Jewish rabbinicalism, and the sects that didn’t approve of either he new testament as well.

 

[po18guy]

The Septuagint, which contains the the deuterocanon, was the primary Scripture text quoted in the new testament, which both Protestants and Catholics agree on. It was quoted nearly three hundred times. The councils of Carthage and Hippo, in 382 and 396 confirmed these books as part of the canon of Scripture, which was later confirmed by the general council of Trent because Luther challenged it. It was always considered scripture until Luther decided he didn’t like the second book of Maccabbess for confirming the belief that “it was a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins,” 2 Macc 12:46–a clear reference to the doctrine of Purgatory. He then, in order to justify this omission, appealed to the Jewish Sects (rabbinical) of his time that also excluded Maccabees by excluding six other books as well that they excluded because there were was no evidence according to them that they were written in Hebrew–except that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, some of these texts, which dated to the time of Christ and not available to Luther nor to those Rabbinal scholars most certainly did contain the Hebrew texts of some excluded books, such as Tobit. In the second cave of Qumran, the “works of the law” document also confirmed the Catholic understanding of works of Jewish law, contrary to Luther’s understating that “works” referred to by Paul in Romans simply referred to good works in general. To state it simply, the status of the deuterocanon was never in question until Luther challenged it with an appeal to Jewish rabbinicalism, and the sects that didn’t approve of either he new testament as well.

I assert that, if one is going to cling to the Lutheran canon of scripture, one should at least be Lutheran for the sake of consistency. To oppose the deuterocanon while being non-Lutheran is simply anti-Catholicism, in my book. Is it not time for the mainline denominations to perhaps re-examine the deuterocanon? Read Sirach, for example. You will see many verses that Jesus essentially paraphrases.

 

[jbeck43]

I assert that, if one is going to cling to the Lutheran canon of scripture, one should at least be Lutheran for the sake of consistency. To oppose the deuterocanon while being non-Lutheran is simply anti-Catholicism, in my book. Is it not time for the mainline denominations to perhaps re-examine the deuterocanon? Read Sirach, for example. You will see many verses that Jesus essentially paraphrases.

I’m not following you. My post was an assertion of the validity of the deuterocanon, not a refusal to believe in it. I was stating that Luther got it wrong. Did you read my post? If the Jewish sects that Luther appealed to denied the validity of the deuterocanon based on their supposed non-Hebrew origin, then they also deny the validity of the new testament itself–since it was written in Greek. It’s a contradiction that Luther happily accepts in order to prove that the deuterocanon doesn’t belong in the canon of scripture, and that simply doesn’t make any sense.

 

[jbeck43]

I’m not following you. My post was an assertion of the validity of the deuterocanon, not a refusal to believe in it. I was stating that Luther got it wrong. Did you read my post? If the Jewish sects that Luther appealed to denied the validity of the deuterocanon based on their supposed non-Hebrew origin, then they also deny the validity of the new testament itself–since it was written in Greek. It’s a contradiction that Luther happily accepts in order to prove that the deuterocanon doesn’t belong in the canon of scripture, and that simply doesn’t make any sense.

One other thing. The reference I made to the 2q mmt document from the Dead Sea Scrolls was an allusion to Romans 3:28 (for we know that a man is justified by faith and not the works of the law). Luther thought this meant all works period. The mmt document is the only other place where the phrase, “works of the law” is used in ancient Jewish literature outside of the Bible. In the mmt document, the phrase specifically refers to Jewish dietary laws. In the New Testament, Paul was combatting the Judaisers who taught the gentiles that you first had to become Jewish before you could become Christian. He wasn’t saying that all you had to do was simply have faith, without responsibility. Luther got this wrong too. That’s all I was saying.

 

[Salvatore123]

Although I have my own on-going thread about sola scriptura, I could not help but ask the following regarding whether the two (or four, if you count the Orthodox bible) books of Maccabees should be considered scriptural:

Even, if only for the sake of argument, a Catholic were to say, “fine - Maccabees are not canonical OT books”, what does the protestant say to the FACT that the book is a historical account of the Maccabean war and represented the beliefs of Jews living at that time - namely, that it was good and holy that we pray for the dead?

I have yet to have a protestant answer that one . . .

 

[po18guy]

I’m not following you. My post was an assertion of the validity of the deuterocanon, not a refusal to believe in it. I was stating that Luther got it wrong. Did you read my post? If the Jewish sects that Luther appealed to denied the validity of the deuterocanon based on their supposed non-Hebrew origin, then they also deny the validity of the new testament itself–since it was written in Greek. It’s a contradiction that Luther happily accepts in order to prove that the deuterocanon doesn’t belong in the canon of scripture, and that simply doesn’t make any sense.

I can be a little obtuse at times. My point is that if someone, no matter from which denomination (or “non-denomination”) is going to maintain, support and defend the 66 book canon of Martin Luther, shouldn’t they actually be a Lutheran in other areas of thought? It seems so odd that they depart from Luther’s thinking on so many other points, yet stick like glue to his opinion of what the canon of scripture is. Are there no independent thinkers among the 35,000+ disparate bible-Christian groups? How about re-visiting all available scripture for potential inclusion in a new bible? The Protoevangelium of James, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, 3 and 4 Esdras, the Shack - I mean there is a whole lot of writing out there to consider for inclusion. What if Luther did not take out enough books?

What’s wrong with a 32 book, or a 100 book bible? Why forever live in the shadow of Luther? Just trying to provoke some thought here.

 

[jbeck43]

I’m not following you. My post was an assertion of the validity of the deuterocanon, not a refusal to believe in it. I was stating that Luther got it wrong. Did you read my post? If the Jewish sects that Luther appealed to denied the validity of the deuterocanon based on their supposed non-Hebrew origin, then they also deny the validity of the new testament itself–since it was written in Greek. It’s a contradiction that Luther happily accepts in order to prove that the deuterocanon doesn’t belong in the canon of scripture, and that simply doesn’t make any sense.

One other thing. The reference I made to the 2q mmt document from the Dead Sea Scrolls was an allusion to Romans 3:28 (for we know that a man is justified by faith and not the works of the law). Luther thought this meant all works period. The mmt document is the only other place where the phrase, “works of the law” is used in ancient Jewish literature outside of the Bible. In the mmt document, the phrase specifically refers to Jewish dietary laws. In the New Testament, Paul was combatting the Judaisers who taught the gentiles that you first had to become Jewish before you could become Christian. He wasn’t saying that all you had to do was simply have faith, without responsibility. Luther got this wrong too. That’s all I was saying.

 

[guanophore]

Furthermore, the apocrypha has always been viewed as “Deuterocanon”, or second canon, with less importance with respect to doctrine (its use is devotional), so there isn’t a problem with skipping over them.

Yes, there have always been divergent ideas about the canon. Revelation, James, Jude and other books were hotly disputed. The authorship of Hebrews has also been disputed.

However, views that depart from the Apostolic faith do not constitute the Truth.

Divergent views also do not justify treating certain scriptures with “less importance and respect to doctrine” than others. I agree this has always happened, but that does not make it right.

The term “Deuterocanon” does not describe a set of books with less importance with respect to doctrine. These books were used by Jesus and the apostles at the same level as the rest of the Septuagint.

 

[bluelake]

hi curtishouse30,

Sola Scriptura is not even in the Bible, so that alone negates their theory/doctrine of the bible alone.

The Good News was proclaimed (spoken aloud by mouth) just as Christ commanded, and this spoken word is still how the gospels are shared every day in the Catholic Mass. Before the written word there was the oral teachings, and in the Catholic faith they go hand-in-hand.

It is a shame the Protestants don’t really even uphold their Sola Scriptura, for in the Bible it teaches that disagreements are taken to the Church as the final word. It also says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible also says to listen to and obey the Bishops…and the list goes on.

Blessings,
CEM

Sola Scruptura seems to be an irritation between believers of all Faiths.
Faith is another contenious word. lol
All Christian denominations believe in Jesus Christ. See Jn.1:1-3,14 ,18 Col.1:15-20
I listen very carefully to what I’m being taught when it involves my salvation.
I rely on the holy Spirit as my first guide, then the teaching of our leaders that the Lord has chosen.
I have several Bibles and Commentaries . I pray for us all.
The Bible teaches “God shows no favoritism”. Rom.2:11

God bless,
bluelake

 

[jbeck43]

I can be a little obtuse at times. My point is that if someone, no matter from which denomination (or “non-denomination”) is going to maintain, support and defend the 66 book canon of Martin Luther, shouldn’t they actually be a Lutheran in other areas of thought? It seems so odd that they depart from Luther’s thinking on so many other points, yet stick like glue to his opinion of what the canon of scripture is. Are there no independent thinkers among the 35,000+ disparate bible-Christian groups? How about re-visiting all available scripture for potential inclusion in a new bible? The Protoevangelium of James, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, 3 and 4 Esdras, the Shack - I mean there is a whole lot of writing out there to consider for inclusion. What if Luther did not take out enough books?

What’s wrong with a 32 book, or a 100 book bible? Why forever live in the shadow of Luther? Just trying to provoke some thought here.

Ahh. Guess I was the one that misunderstood. Apologies.

 

[Salvatore123]

Ah, but God DOES show a preference . . . a preference for truth!

 

[po18guy]

Ahh. Guess I was the one that misunderstood. Apologies.

None needed. I always seem to take the outside-looking-in viewpoint.

 

[guanophore]

Furthermore, the apocrypha has always been viewed as “Deuterocanon”, or second canon, with less importance with respect to doctrine (its use is devotional), so there isn’t a problem with skipping over them.

The fact that people have adhered to views that depart from Apostolic Teaching does not support their accuracy. There have been heretical views evident since the NT was written. Claiming they exist next to correct doctrine is something we can agree upon. Claiming that, because they exist, that makes them valid, correct, or consistent with Apostolic faith is false.