You can't have it both ways.

[Jimmy_B]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

Westminster Confession of Faith which states:

VII. *All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. *

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

Your thoughts?

 

[zdon011]

The ‘sole’ purpose of Sola Scriptura (no pun intended) is to justify Protestantism’s rebellion and continued secession from the Catholic Church. It allows them to ignore 2000 years of Christian history.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The ‘sole’ purpose of Sola Scriptura (no pun intended) is to justify Protestantism’s rebellion and continued secession from the Catholic Church. It allows them to ignore 2000 years of Christian history.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I’m thinking a Catholic forum probably isn’t the best place to get a lot of protestant answers on this. Not all protestants believe in it either. I have a friend who has a masters degree in old testament studies from an ivy league who wants to teach at a protestant seminary and he thinks it is silly to try and reconcile the idea of Sola Scripture with the history of scripture and so did most of his, also protestant, professors.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I feel there are many who try very hard to define sola scriptura to terms and definitions tailored to fit their purpose…

 

[Jimmy_B]

I feel there are many who try very hard to define sola scriptura to terms and definitions tailored to fit their purpose…

There also seems to be a thousand different definitions of sola scriptura… isn’t there?

 

[PatrickSebast]

There also seems to be a thousand different definitions of sola scriptura… isn’t there?

At its most basic level it means that scripture is the highest authority and all other Christian authorities must submit to it.

 

[Jon_Hus]

There also seems to be a thousand different definitions of sola scriptura… isn’t there?

Shouldn’t it be 30 or 60 thousand different definitions, one for each protestant denomination?

Just out of curiosity, is it possible for someone to be sola scriptura without confessing the westminster confession of faith?

 

[StTommyMore]

Actually, I find it hard to be both “Sola Scriptura” and Trinitarian at the same time.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

Your thoughts?

When I was an atheist trolling discussion boards, chat rooms, and so forth pouncing on Christians, one of the arguments I used against religion, and it is applicable to all religions, is that more than one group invalidates the truth of that particular religion.
In other words, if the religion was true, why would their be conflicting opinions?
Your argument runs along a similiar vein. It presupposes that when sinful and imperfect people are exposed to Truth, they will respond with the same reaction.
I personally do not believe that people who hold differeing views of Truth (ie Orthodox and Catholic differences on Sacred Tradition) invalidates Truth. It does speak to a potential weakness however in any view.
As far as only listing verses, the biblical pattern established by the Bible itself is that verses are quoted, Christ, Paul, John all did this, and then it is expounded upon. So the biblical pattern itself does not square with your initial presupposition about what constitutes proper sola scriptura practice. Does it?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

The vast majority of those churches came not because of debates over the meaning of random passages, but due to historical reasons. For example, the Methodists came out of the Anglican Church not because they said, “We like our interpretations better!” but because the Anglican Church did not like the Methodists taking Christianity out into the streets, the hospitals, the prisons, and evangelizing to the common folk outside a controlled church setting (Whitefield preaching to the miners, Wesley to those on death row, etc.). Many other divisions came because a church wasn’t following sola scriptura by not following scripture at all. For example, the Evangelical Methodist Church split from the United Methodist Church because the latter was growing more and more liberal. The same with the PCA and Orthodox Presbyterian, who went away from the Presbyterian USA Church. In this manner, the churches were merely following the command of the apostle to “what out” for those who “create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” and “avoid them” (Rom 16:17). You can’t, however, say both these churches were following sola scriptura unless you profess that what the liberal and world-like churches teach are exactly what is taught in scripture (which I don’t think any conservative or rational-minded Roman Catholic would do).

I won’t deny there are perhaps some churches out there who split because of scriptural passages that were disagreed upon, but they would have to identified for that argument to have any merit. As it stands, to blame it on sola scriptura would make as much sense as blaming the division between Roman Catholics, Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, and various Eastern Christian churches on independent scriptural interpretation as well (which, in some ways, you could).

 

[Nine_Two]

Just out of curiosity, is it possible for someone to be sola scriptura without confessing the westminster confession of faith?

Yes. Westminster is the founding document of the Established Church of Scotland, and as such holds a similar place in the Presbyterian Churches as the 39 Articles do in Anglican Church, however from my experience Westminster tends to be a restating of Calvin’s own Institutions, the basic ideas of which are followed by almost all Reformed Christians. Although Luther confessed belief in Sola Scriptura as well (I believe he coined it), he also acknowledged a place for tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

Your thoughts?

Whew! We can all discuss this topic for the next 100 years and still get no where. As I get older and hopefully wiser ( ) I have come to realize that some people simply will not accept or care what one has to say no matter what is presented. We all follow our respective Christian churches and traditions and some us since birth. To be honest I am growing tired of the “I am right” and “you are wrong” arguments. I for one try my best without getting into heated debates, tell my non-Catholic friends and our separate brothers and sisters what we as Catholics believe and teach. They want to learn more about it…great! If not,then God bless and may the Lord guide us all as one. Now I know at times it does not go in such a pattern,but I try. Peace!

 

[u202594]

seems that the OP was written more to start an aurgument than a debate; however, this was the major factor for me converting to Catholicism…to me i can 100% accept the fact that the holy spirit leads us in uncovering the meaning of scripture. what hooked me was the saying of “if one person feels that the holy spirit has lead them to uncover the deeper meaning of certian scripture and another person believes that they were also lead, but to the opposit conclusion, where is the truth.” of course there are always areas that scripture can have more than one meaning but to outright condridict itself? i can’t beleive that Jesus would set us up for the obvious failure that has come from the idea of sola scriptora and this was where it took me more faith to continue to attend a protestant church then to admitt that i can’t fight the obvious logic behind having a visible authoritative entity. one that is truely commissioned fro Christ. this isn’t an attack on my non-catholic brothers but why would we be lead to such abiguity? it obvious from the post here on catholic.com that the non-catholic members are definitly educated and i am quite interested in the counter aurgument…

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t claim to be Sola Scriptura, only Prima Scriptura, in a Wesleyan/Pentecostal sort of way. I was accused of that by a fundamentalist friend, so I researched it. She was right, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all.

“Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual’s understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service.”[3]

– The United Methodist Church **
**

 

[UniversalistGuy]

I don’t claim to be Sola Scriptura, only Prima Scriptura, in a Wesleyan/Pentecostal sort of way. I was accused of that by a fundy friend, so I researched it. She was right, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all.

“Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual’s understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service.”[3]

– The United Methodist Church **
**

Isn’t there another one called Solo Scriptura? So there’s three of them? But aren’t they all just really the same thing, like, based on rejection of Catholicism?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Sola Scriptura is one of the founding doctrines of Protestantism (with Sola Fide and other “solas”). It’s interesting to see Protestants on this forum reject it. It didn’t stand the test of time. In fact, Calvin disagreed with Luther about what it meant.

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable. And the Protestant notion that the Holy Spirit leads each individual to truth when reading the Scriptures, which is concomitant with Sola Scriptura, is absurd.

Jim Dandy

 

[Izdaari]

Isn’t there another one called Solo Scriptura? So there’s three of them? But aren’t they all just really the same thing, like, based on rejection of Catholicism?

Solo Scriptura isn’t anybody’s official view, as far as I know. Instead, it’s somebody’s pejorative characterization of somebody else’s view, an exaggeration saying they completely ignore everything but Scripture.

I don’t base my faith on rejection of Catholicism. I consider Catholics to be my Christian brethren, though in error on some points. I’ve at least looked over the Catholic Catechism, and I’d say I agree with about 90%. But some of the remaining 10% are biggies.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

Sola Scriptura is one of the founding doctrines of Protestantism (with Sola Fide and other “solas”). It’s interesting to see Protestants on this forum reject it. It didn’t stand the test of time. In fact, Calvin disagreed with Luther about what it meant.

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable. And the Protestant notion that the Holy Spirit leads each individual to truth when reading the Scriptures, which is concomitant with Sola Scriptura, is absurd.

Jim Dandy

Why do you think it is absurd?

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;7013980:

Isn’t there another one called Solo Scriptura? So there’s three of them? But aren’t they all just really the same thing, like, based on rejection of Catholicism?

Solo Scriptura isn’t anybody’s official view, as far as I know. Instead, it’s somebody’s pejorative characterization of somebody else’s view, an exaggeration saying they completely ignore everything but Scripture.

I don’t base my faith on rejection of Catholicism. I consider Catholics to be my Christian brethren, though in error on some points. I’ve at least looked over the Catholic Catechism, and I’d say I agree with about 90%. But some of the remaining 10% are biggies.

Thank you much for answering. So let me ask this. What methodology did you use to reject 10% as error? Was it Prima Scriptura thinking or something else? In other words couldn’t the Catholic Church be 100% right and your understanding of God and what He expects be not quite right? Is that possible?