Why Sola Scriptura is so convincing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

souldiver

Guest
Many Protestants are converting Catholics by indicating that they’re unbiblical, then it will work wonders in conversion.

When a Catholic give a reasoning with a Sola Scriptura adherent, they would commonly say “where is that in the Bible?” and the latter would seem like he feels that the Catholic is checkmated.

I’m not being pursued by Protestants in my youth but I became anti-Catholic after I read the part where God forbid statues. But I hear out apologetics in CA and I find them feasible and since then liked Catholicism, it’s pretty relaxed compare to other Christians. I haven’t found any church older than the CC, so it must be really the apostolic church founded before the New Testament writings so it’s clergy must have known Christian stuff not in the Bible and given authority originating from Jesus and the apostles. I know the verse where Jesus says to the apostles, “if they listen to you, they listen to me”
 
It is a little curious how strong and widespread the assumption of Sola Scriptura became–it’s quite a leap to go from “everything in the Bible is the word of God,” to “the entire word of God must be in the Bible.”

Not sure how Luther backed up his Bible-alone assertions; I’m sure had had some rationale. But it really is (very ironically) not a truth which is found in Scripture.
 
SS creates a very simple rule of faith and eliminates the need to query where certain doctrines came from. Simple is easier to defend.

ICXC NIKA
 
SS is convincing because the writing of Holy Scripture has been inspired by God.,
 
It depends what culture/country you’re living in, but in the US with a strong history of protestantism, it’s something that is assumed since early childhood and not something you would question unless the question is forced upon you, or you’re a curious person.

If you asked me when I was 15 why I believe in Solo Scripture (a term I would have been unfamiliar with), I would wonder “What else?” I don’t see how you can’t bring Tradition into it since in order to know how the Bible came to be in the first place, you are forced to bring in extra-Biblical sources & history, but that is another topic and I won’t turn this into a cheerleading thread since that isn’t the intent.

That’s the perspective of a protestant that turned Catholic. For Catholics that go protestant, I don’t have anecdotal experience with, but I’m told it’s often an appeal to purity / primitivism, or “going back to the roots”. The Catholic Church is highly structured & complex compared to your average protestant denomination. The quickness/simplicity of the protestant message can seem very refreshing.

I also think - and my opinion hasn’t changed since conversion - that American protestants are often very effective at outreach & nurturing community, moreso than what can be found in a lot of parishes.
 
souldiver said:
Many Protestants are converting Catholics by indicating that they’re unbiblical, then it will work wonders in conversion.

When a Catholic give a reasoning with a Sola Scriptura adherent, they would commonly say “where is that in the Bible?” and the latter would seem like he feels that the Catholic is checkmated.

I’m not being pursued by Protestants in my youth but I became anti-Catholic after I read the part where God forbid statues. But I hear out apologetics in CA and I find them feasible and since then liked Catholicism, it’s pretty relaxed compare to other Christians. I haven’t found any church older than the CC, so it must be really the apostolic church founded before the New Testament writings so it’s clergy must have known Christian stuff not in the Bible and given authority originating from Jesus and the apostles. I know the verse where Jesus says to the apostles, “if they listen to you, they listen to me”
Click to expand...
I think SS is so appealing because it allows a person to believe they they can easily interpret the bible for themselves. the problem is in knowing that your interpretation is correct.

There is psychological gratification in thinking that one can “know” what the Bible teaches and that if others believe something contrary they are wrong. It is appealing because you get to be the one that has the “truth” or the true understanding of that which is from God.
 
Even as a Protestant I never found Sola Scriptura very convincing. I could never find anything in scripture which said that scripture stands on its own authority. :confused:
 
Tomdstone said:
SS is convincing because the writing of Holy Scripture has been inspired by God.,
Click to expand...
So is the Catholic church.

Man wrote the bible through th Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit too, so personally I have, never understood this line of thinking. It is flawed.

We all know the Holy Spirit it did not pick up a pen and write scripture.
 
mommy_k said:
So is the Catholic church.

Man wrote the bible through th Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit too, so personally I have, never understood this line of thinking. It is flawed.

We all know the Holy Spirit it did not pick up a pen and write scripture.
Click to expand...
Yes, the irony of SS is that it would make more sense if SS were a Catholic teaching, since Catholic councils were responsible for compiling the texts that make up the bible.
 
Where is the bible in the bible?

Sola scripture might be more convincing if there was contained within the bible the story of Jesus handing the bible to the Apostles and saying “It’s all in here.” But he didn’t hand them a book. He didn’t even ask them to write everything. And it was the Catholic Church who gathered the writings and canonized them.
 
Exactly… the bible came out of the church. The bible didn’t pre-date the church.
 
JimG said:
Where is the bible in the bible?

Sola scripture might be more convincing if there was contained within the bible the story of Jesus handing the bible to the Apostles and saying “It’s all in here.” But he didn’t hand them a book. He didn’t even ask them to write everything. And it was the Catholic Church who gathered the writings and canonized them.
Click to expand...
I think this history is not very well known.

Many people who lead small, independent, “non-denominational” churches in the US today (can’t speak for elsewhere) are not well educated and do not know theology. This doesn’t mean that their hearts aren’t in the right place or that they aren’t on fire for their love of God, because a simplistic faith can be a wonderful thing. BUT, it makes it very easy to teach error. It’s favorable in some circles to be anti-intellectual and not to know history. Although that’s not what “know nothing” refers to, I think that movement is growing in the US again and unsurprisingly anti-Catholicism is a big part of it. “We can do it, this speaks for itself, and we don’t need any experts” is very, very attractive to Americans.
 
As others have mentioned, it’s an easier philosophy to understand, even if a shallow look at the arguments that back it up will reveal how weak the foundation is. Here in the US where Sola Scriptura has strong historical roots, most Protestants that believe in SS just accept it as fact since, at least on the surface, it seems so logical and simple to understand. The minority that do question it may end up leaving their religion, and some may convert to other churches, such as the Catholic Church.
 
If you are potentially convinced that the Bible forbids us from having statues (“graven images”), then you’d better not have any photographs of family members around your house!
That right there illustrates why sola scriptura isn’t logical. (Nor is sola scriptura taught in Scripture!)
 
surritter said:
If you are potentially convinced that the Bible forbids us from having statues (“graven images”), then you’d better not have any photographs of family members around your house!
That right there illustrates why sola scriptura isn’t logical. (Nor is sola scriptura taught in Scripture!)
Click to expand...
It also strikes me as odd since it ignores the very, very, very specific instructions for the building of both the Ark of the Covenant and then the Temple in the OT.
 
surritter said:
If you are potentially convinced that the Bible forbids us from having statues (“graven images”), then you’d better not have any photographs of family members around your house!
That right there illustrates why sola scriptura isn’t logical. (Nor is sola scriptura taught in Scripture!)
Click to expand...
photographs are flat and are not graven.
 
Which came first? The Catholic Church or the Bible?

Answer: The Catholic Church.
 
Sola Scriptura is convincing only to those who are ignorant of Tradition and history. And even among “sola scriptura” Christians, none of them actually believes everything in the Scriptures. They cherry-pick the parts they choose to believe and ignore the parts that don’t fit their ideology.
 
boomerang said:
Sola Scriptura is convincing only to those who are ignorant of Tradition and history. And even among “sola scriptura” Christians, none of them actually believes everything in the Scriptures. They cherry-pick the parts they choose to believe and ignore the parts that don’t fit their ideology.
Click to expand...
Exactly and even the Lutherans, ELCA synod who profess sola scriptura, agree abortion elective is acceptable and pay for it in their Church insurance plan for workers. How sad to me.

catholicstand.com/elca-abortion/

A while ago, I read a blog post over at First Things that was a blast from my past. The author, a Lutheran pastor, recently left the ELCA to become a member of the newly-formed North American Lutheran Church (NALC). He said, “My real disaffection with the ELCA didn’t start with sex. It began in earnest over the ELCA abortion statement and the subsequent decision by the national council to treat elective abortion for pastors and dependents as a reimbursable medical expense under the church health plan.”
It was this exact issue that was my first step on the path toward the Catholic Church. Until I had learned of that same decision, I had assumed that the Lutheran Church was opposed to abortion; after all, how could anyone who claimed to follow Jesus Christ support the killing of unborn children? Wasn’t “Thou shall not kill” a pretty essential element of Christianity? In my 22 years as a faithful, churchgoing member of the ELCA, I could not remember hearing a Lutheran pastor preach a sermon on abortion. It was not an issue discussed in any of the three ELCA churches I’d attended up to that point in my life. Shortly thereafter I accessed online the ELCA’s Social Statement on Abortion (SSOA), and as I read it my faith in the ELCA was shaken to the core.
The first statement that bowled me over was, “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top