Are there any other branches or denominations of Christianity that oppose "Sola Scriptura"?
Do only Catholics oppose Sola Scriptura?
- Thread starter David Jerome
- Start date
GrayAngel
Senior Member
Oh, definitely. But most of them won't openly admit it. They'll say that the Bible was "inspired" by God, but only certain parts of it are good. (Guess who gets to decide which parts are good and which are not.) Others will just use whatever scripture they can misconstrue in support of their own views. All three approaches do virtually the same thing, though: Believe what you want, and console the scriptures only when they agree with you.
In fact, I'd venture to say that true sola scriptura churches are in the minority today. Most people don't even know their dusty old Bibles well enough to know the difference.
In fact, I'd venture to say that true sola scriptura churches are in the minority today. Most people don't even know their dusty old Bibles well enough to know the difference.
Upvote
0
drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
answer to the first question, because the pope is supposed to be a spiritual descendant of the apostle Peter and as such is supposed to have the power and authority to change the church as Peter would have. Sola Scriptura denies the that type of power to any one person and place the power back into the Holy Spirit who authored the bible.
Second question. the Mormons also do this for basically the same reason (their leadership are Prophets of God and are in direct contact with Him via angels.) So they can change the bible at will.
Upvote
0
P
Publius
Guest
Not if they understand what sola scriptura is. The problem with Catholics is that they're religious leaders have lied to them about what sola scriptura is.
Ask any Catholic what sola scriptura means and they'll tell you that it means we don't have any sources outside of the Bible. Catholics routinely ask us, "If you believe in sola scriptura, then why do you have teachers and preachers and Sunday School"?
But sola scriptura means that of all of the sources of truth we have, scripture is the highest authority to which all of those sources must submit.
We have creeds, confessions, and catechisms, all of which are under submission to the authority of scripture.
Upvote
0
Many Christians other than Catholics do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and do not believe it was dictated by God.
Upvote
0
And who do you allow to decide which parts of the Bible to rely upon and which parts to ignore? Do you take all parts of the bible equally and treat them equally and spend equal time in the study and understanding of them? If you do you are probably the only person in existence that does.
Upvote
0
GrayAngel
Senior Member
I don't allow anyone to tell me what parts of the Bible to believe in. I always read along with my pastor and think critically on what they teach. On several occasions, I have discovered pastors misrepresenting scripture. The pastors of my current church, however, haven't done so to the best of my knowledge, but some of the Bible study leaders have.
I trust in the inerrancy of the Bible, as it was originally written, and the only problems that exist are within our own translations, which with a little research could be brought to light. I spend time reading both Old and New Testaments, and I give attention to books that are often ignored. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who do that. They just make up the minority of Christians.
It seems you have a ridiculously high standard set here. You don't have to time yourself with a stop watch to make sure you spend exactly the same amount of time studying Genesis as you do Revelation. You don't have to in order to understand them. The majority of scripture is easy to understand, so long as you don't have somebody misreading it for you.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,462
- 26,892
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Sola Scriptura is a concept that was borne out of the Protestant Reformation, as such it is uniquely Protestant.
Non-Protestant church traditions, therefore, don't have a tradition of Sola Scriptura and this includes Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Ultrajectine (Old Catholic) Churches.
-CryptoLutheran
Non-Protestant church traditions, therefore, don't have a tradition of Sola Scriptura and this includes Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Ultrajectine (Old Catholic) Churches.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Harry3142
Regular Member
David-
First, you need to understand that there are not only catholic and protestant churches, but there are also churches and sects which are listed under the heading 'radical'. Nearly all of the more evangelical denominations, such as the Baptists , Pentecostals, and Campbellites, as well the SDA's and JW's, are under this heading.
Some of the churches listed as radical make an honest attempt to study Scripture and teach it without limitations as to which passages are to be studied. But some of the other churches and sects listed as radical will claim to be Scripture-oriented, but the reality is that the 'Scripture' they teach as necessary for salvation is also that Scripture (usually in single verses, or even 1/2 verses) which supports their own theology. I myself had a minister of one of the sects circa 1970 attempt to convince me that I needed to close my Bible and instead let him tell me what it 'really' said. Usually those denominations/sects will also attempt to convince you through intimidation, manipulation, or even bullying that you need their particualar church or sect in order to achieve salvation. Be prepared, because their goal is not to enlighten you, but rather to ensnare you and then add you to their list of conquests.
First, you need to understand that there are not only catholic and protestant churches, but there are also churches and sects which are listed under the heading 'radical'. Nearly all of the more evangelical denominations, such as the Baptists , Pentecostals, and Campbellites, as well the SDA's and JW's, are under this heading.
Some of the churches listed as radical make an honest attempt to study Scripture and teach it without limitations as to which passages are to be studied. But some of the other churches and sects listed as radical will claim to be Scripture-oriented, but the reality is that the 'Scripture' they teach as necessary for salvation is also that Scripture (usually in single verses, or even 1/2 verses) which supports their own theology. I myself had a minister of one of the sects circa 1970 attempt to convince me that I needed to close my Bible and instead let him tell me what it 'really' said. Usually those denominations/sects will also attempt to convince you through intimidation, manipulation, or even bullying that you need their particualar church or sect in order to achieve salvation. Be prepared, because their goal is not to enlighten you, but rather to ensnare you and then add you to their list of conquests.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I'd be curious about the background to the question. The reason is that "sola scriptura" doesn't necessarily mean what most people think it does.
It's a slogan from the Reformation. As far as I know, all Christians consider Scripture to be authoritative. You can find lots of statements like that throughout Church history. You can even find early Christians saying that we shouldn't teach anything unless it comes from Scripture. Thus in many ways "sola scripture" could have been used for them.
However most of those people assumed that the Church would remain faithful, and thus that the Church interprets Scripture.
The Reformers thought that they were confronted with a situation where the Church's traditional interpretations had become implausible. It's not that the Church stopped using Scripture. It's just that they had a number of beliefs and practices that either weren't justified from it at all, or where the interpretations to do so were implausible.
Hence the phrase "sola scripture" as used by the Reformers meant that Scripture was the primary authority, and could be used to judge Church tradition. It's that use of Scripture to trump tradition that is implied by "sola scriptura."
Of course the original Reformers founded their own Churches with their own traditions, whether they intended to or not. They didn't envision isolated Christians each operating individually. They still made decisions as a community, and the community built up traditions. However an individual always had the right to say "I think you've got it wrong", and demand that the community be accountable to Scripture. That's the primary difference from the Catholic tradition. Of course in the end they had to convince the community, something that became increasingly hard as Protestant traditions were developed and codified.
But the result is a lot more complicated than is often portrayed. There's a range of understandings of sola scripture:
* Catholic and Orthodox don't use the phrase. They believe that the Church won't make serious and prolonged errors, and thus there is no real way to use Scripture to judge tradition.
Protestants and groups claiming not to be Protestant but operating on the same principles (e.g. some Baptists) will normally claim some version of sola scriptura. But these groups normally build up traditional understandings of Scripture. While they all claim that these traditions are open for reexamination, the extent to which this is allowed varies.
* Conservative Confessional Protestants, e.g. the Presbyterian Church in America or the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans effectively do not allow challenges. They accept sola scripture in principle, but they are strongly committed to their confessional traditions, and in practice are not open to significant challenge to those traditions.
* mainline Protestant Churches, e.g. PCUSA and ELCA implement it roughly as intended. They value their traditions, but permit challenges, and do change their views over time. But they try to operate more or less as communities, and not just as individuals, though how well this actually works varies. Most of these groups have subgroups that are at war with each other over homosexuality and other controversial issues.
* some churches are accused of not accepting any tradition at all, leaving individuals to make their own judgement without guidance. However this is more an accusation than a reality. I have to say that the accusation is made more plausible by the fact that some of these groups claim to completely reject any kind of tradition. But in practice they all do have traditions.
The closest I know to groups with no tradition is some Baptists and non-denominational Christians, who refuse as a matter of principle to codify standards, and allow individuals to dissent from the community's views. But from a practical point of view, every church that I know does have what amount to traditional interpretations. What they cover and how much dissent they allow vary, but many groups who claim not to have any tradition will still enforce traditional views on topics such as whether Jesus is God, sexual purity, and other controversial issues. Usually this is defended by saying "This isn't a violation of sola scriptura. Scripture is just so clear on these issues that no one can reasonably disagree."
The net result is that rather than talking about who accepts "sola scriptura", you may be better off asking (1) which groups believe in inerrant tradition, (2) of the rest, to what extent they formally document their traditions, and how much dissent they allow.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are often considered the only members of (1), but probably Jehovah's Witnesses should be included as well, and arguably the LDS. I would also argue that some conservative confessional Protestants also believe in an inerrant traditional interpretation of Scripture.
It's a slogan from the Reformation. As far as I know, all Christians consider Scripture to be authoritative. You can find lots of statements like that throughout Church history. You can even find early Christians saying that we shouldn't teach anything unless it comes from Scripture. Thus in many ways "sola scripture" could have been used for them.
However most of those people assumed that the Church would remain faithful, and thus that the Church interprets Scripture.
The Reformers thought that they were confronted with a situation where the Church's traditional interpretations had become implausible. It's not that the Church stopped using Scripture. It's just that they had a number of beliefs and practices that either weren't justified from it at all, or where the interpretations to do so were implausible.
Hence the phrase "sola scripture" as used by the Reformers meant that Scripture was the primary authority, and could be used to judge Church tradition. It's that use of Scripture to trump tradition that is implied by "sola scriptura."
Of course the original Reformers founded their own Churches with their own traditions, whether they intended to or not. They didn't envision isolated Christians each operating individually. They still made decisions as a community, and the community built up traditions. However an individual always had the right to say "I think you've got it wrong", and demand that the community be accountable to Scripture. That's the primary difference from the Catholic tradition. Of course in the end they had to convince the community, something that became increasingly hard as Protestant traditions were developed and codified.
But the result is a lot more complicated than is often portrayed. There's a range of understandings of sola scripture:
* Catholic and Orthodox don't use the phrase. They believe that the Church won't make serious and prolonged errors, and thus there is no real way to use Scripture to judge tradition.
Protestants and groups claiming not to be Protestant but operating on the same principles (e.g. some Baptists) will normally claim some version of sola scriptura. But these groups normally build up traditional understandings of Scripture. While they all claim that these traditions are open for reexamination, the extent to which this is allowed varies.
* Conservative Confessional Protestants, e.g. the Presbyterian Church in America or the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans effectively do not allow challenges. They accept sola scripture in principle, but they are strongly committed to their confessional traditions, and in practice are not open to significant challenge to those traditions.
* mainline Protestant Churches, e.g. PCUSA and ELCA implement it roughly as intended. They value their traditions, but permit challenges, and do change their views over time. But they try to operate more or less as communities, and not just as individuals, though how well this actually works varies. Most of these groups have subgroups that are at war with each other over homosexuality and other controversial issues.
* some churches are accused of not accepting any tradition at all, leaving individuals to make their own judgement without guidance. However this is more an accusation than a reality. I have to say that the accusation is made more plausible by the fact that some of these groups claim to completely reject any kind of tradition. But in practice they all do have traditions.
The closest I know to groups with no tradition is some Baptists and non-denominational Christians, who refuse as a matter of principle to codify standards, and allow individuals to dissent from the community's views. But from a practical point of view, every church that I know does have what amount to traditional interpretations. What they cover and how much dissent they allow vary, but many groups who claim not to have any tradition will still enforce traditional views on topics such as whether Jesus is God, sexual purity, and other controversial issues. Usually this is defended by saying "This isn't a violation of sola scriptura. Scripture is just so clear on these issues that no one can reasonably disagree."
The net result is that rather than talking about who accepts "sola scriptura", you may be better off asking (1) which groups believe in inerrant tradition, (2) of the rest, to what extent they formally document their traditions, and how much dissent they allow.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are often considered the only members of (1), but probably Jehovah's Witnesses should be included as well, and arguably the LDS. I would also argue that some conservative confessional Protestants also believe in an inerrant traditional interpretation of Scripture.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
