Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Ortho_Cat]

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

 

[98cwitr]

"Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself."

If you can make time to go to church, you can make time to read the Bible. I read for 30 minutes Monday-Thursday after the Daily Show...that's my Bible reading time.

Therefore sola scriptura presupposes
(1) the existence of the printing press,

(2) the universal distribution of Bibles,

(3) universal literacy,

(4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials,

(5) the universal possession of adequate time for study,

(6) universal nutrition, and

(7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.

1. Check, we got that...if you can build a church in Russia I'm sure you can get some correctly translated Bibles out there

2. See above

3. Most people can read, if they can't read they can think and conceptualize. What did those poor 1st century women do when they couldn't read? Ask their husbands

4. Not necessary with the proper translations

5. Everyone can make time, it just takes motivation

6. Maybe we should stop promoting fasting...oh wait....

7. That's why we have preachers and sunday school teachers

 

[laconicstudent]

If you can make time to go to church

You assume because we have several free hours on Sunday mornings, we will necessarily have even more free time later?

 

[Hentenza]

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

I read the first sentence in the link. Lets begin there. The article claims that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine. It is not. It is a praxis.

 

[98cwitr]

Why would a professing Christian discredit the Holy Scripture?

 

[Hentenza]

Why would a professing Christian discredit the Holy Scripture?

For the most part they don't. They simply believe that the scriptures are part of "T"radition with "T"radition being of equal authority as scriptures.

 

[Chesterton]

"Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself."

If you can make time to go to church, you can make time to read the Bible. I read for 30 minutes Monday-Thursday after the Daily Show...that's my Bible reading time.

1. Check, we got that...if you can build a church in Russia I'm sure you can get some correctly translated Bibles out there

2. See above

3. Most people can read, if they can't read they can think and conceptualize. What did those poor 1st century women do when they couldn't read? Ask their husbands

4. Not necessary with the proper translations

5. Everyone can make time, it just takes motivation

6. Maybe we should stop promoting fasting...oh wait....

7. That's why we have preachers and sunday school teachers

I swear I think some of you believe the Christian faith was founded in 1776.

 

[laconicstudent]

I swear I think some of you believe the Christian faith was founded in 1776.

It would very much appear so.

 

[Hentenza]

A necessary corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says.

This portion is incorrect. The only difference between those that practice Sola Scriptura and those that practice "T"radition plus scripture is the authority bestowed to the words of men. The magisterium or "T"raditon merely uses the personal interpretations of a few which is why no two "T"radition churches believe the same. There is no difference.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Well, Jefferson did make his own Bible...

 

[laconicstudent]

Well, Jefferson did make his own Bible...

How horrifying.

 

[sunlover1]

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

I thought most of the complaints were kind of lame.
Which ones did you feel were strong arguments?

Therefore sola scriptura presupposes
(1) the existence of the printing press,

(2) the universal distribution of Bibles,

(3) universal literacy,

(4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials,

(5) the universal possession of adequate time for study,

(6) universal nutrition, and

(7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.

Thanks for the succinct list 98witcr.

Some of these things were indeed issues in the past and are obviously
issues somewhere even now.
But why would that negate SS?
We all know God desires that we be in good health,
yet some folks have no health care available to them.
The one thing doesn't negate the other.

You assume because we have several free hours on Sunday mornings, we will necessarily have even more free time later?

Well it's not like someone's holding a weapon to your head making you
hang out on CF. .. but yeah, we do assume you have lots of free time
or TAKE free time, time that could easily be spent studying.
(Me too!)
Or whatever you are suggesting that you "must" do that keeps you from
studying the Bible.
Besides , we all have the same 24 hours in a day and freedom to choose
what/who we'll serve.

Some of us just crave His approval perhaps LOL

(study to show yourself approved)

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Sola Scriputra, eh, you could do a lot worse.

Solo Scriptura, however, is terrifying.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I think this dichotomy between scripture and scripture+tradition is a false one.

I contend that the concept of "sola scriptura" is essentially a tradition of man (and a rather recent one at that). Allow me to explain.

If I say that I am going to let the commentary of holy men who were a part of the early church guide my interpretation of the scripture, that is a tradition.

If I say that I am not going to allow anyone to interpret scripture for me, and I'm going to read it and interpret it for myself (sola scriptura "par excellence"), that is another tradition.

Therefore, everyone is abiding by various traditions and applying different contexts (historical vs. modern) when they sit down (or stand up) to read their bibles. Are we to say that all traditions here are equally valid? Surely not...

 

[Hentenza]

Jesus, while a man on Earth, was a sola scripturist.

 

[laconicstudent]

Sola scriptura doesn't make any sense. Using it, we've developed thousands of tiny, independent sects, all teaching their own little contradictory thing, confusing the faithful, and perpetuating error.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Jesus, while a man on Earth, was a sola scripturist.

Strange, this verse didn't give me that impression at all.

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

"The Pharisees believed that in addition to the written Torah recognized by both the Sadducees and Pharisees and believed to have been written by Moses, there exists another Torah, consisting of the corpus of oral laws and traditions transmitted by God to Moses orally, and then memorized and passed down by Moses and his successors over the generations. The Oral Torah functioned to elaborate and explicate what was written, and the Pharisees asserted that the sacred scriptures were not complete on their own terms and could therefore not be understood."

Pharisees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, this sounds very much like apostolic succession and the handing down of Christian Tradition to me.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

His problem lies here (highlighting mine):

"PRESUPPOSITION #1 First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean..."

The writer then repeats his erroneous statement in each of his points, namely, "each Christian...for himself"...

Though "each Christian...for himself" would indeed require printing presses, mass production of Bibles, etc, "each Christian...for himself" is not an essential point of "Sola Scriptura". Even if there is only one Bible in the town, there can still be the practice of "Sola Scriptura" for the rule of faith and practice provided the literate reader(s) in the town is/are committed to that principle.

Also bear in mind, the perfect execution of the principle of "Sola Scriptura" for the rule of faith and practice is not a requisite for having "Sola Scriptura" as the ideal to which the believer(s) aim.

So, you may safely and fearlessly toss the article as rubbish from the get-go.

 

[Verticordious]

Sola scriptura doesn't make any sense. Using it, we've developed thousands of tiny, independent sects, all teaching their own little contradictory thing, confusing the faithful, and perpetuating error.

That's because people read into the Bible what they want to get out of it. Most Bible translations fall within a 6-7 grade reading level, which most people have, so its not a problem of literacy or ambiguity. A great example is Romans 9. Calvinists are always saying "Look! It says God hated Esau! That proves predestination!". Yet, when you look back to Genesis and Malachi, where the quotes in Romans 9 come from, it is glaringly obvious God did not hate Esau the individual, he hated the Edomites the descendants of Esau.

The misinterpretation of Romans 9 has nothing to do with the book being confusing or hard to read, it is because people choose not to understand. They see what they want to see and then stop reading. They don't want to turn to Genesis 35, Malachi 1, or Jeremiah 18 to understand the context of those quotes and find that their interpretation is horribly wrong. You can't blame that on scripture.

Sola Scripture doesn't mean that you can never have a discussion with people about what a particular passage means, or that you can't read a book about someone about what the Bible has to say about a particular subject. It also doesn't mean that you can't ask someone else for advice, it just means that you should seek advice from someone you know has knowledge of scripture and can give you scriptural reasons for their advice, and that they're not just making stuff off the top of their head. What it means is that it is ultimately your own personal responsibility to separate the fact from the fiction. You should be taking the time to think about what you're doing, and not just follow the commands of some alleged "spiritual leader".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

That's because people read into the Bible what they want to get out of it. Most Bible translations fall within a 6-7 grade reading level, which most people have, so its not a problem of literacy or ambiguity. A great example is Romans 9. Calvinists are always saying "Look! It says God hated Esau! That proves predestination!". Yet, when you look back to Genesis and Malachi, where the quotes in Romans 9 come from, it is glaringly obvious God did not hate Esau the individual, he hated the Edomites the descendants of Esau.

The misinterpretation of Romans 9 has nothing to do with the book being confusing or hard to read, it is because people choose not to understand. They see what they want to see and then stop reading. They don't want to turn to Genesis 35, Malachi 1, or Jeremiah 18 to understand the context of those quotes and find that their interpretation is horribly wrong. You can't blame that on scripture.

Sola Scripture doesn't mean that you can never have a discussion with people about what a particular passage means, or that you can't read a book about someone about what the Bible has to say about a particular subject. It also doesn't mean that you can't ask someone else for advice, it just means that you should seek advice from someone you know has knowledge of scripture and can give you scriptural reasons for their advice, and that they're not just making stuff off the top of their head. What it means is that it is ultimately your own personal responsibility to separate the fact from the fiction. You should be taking the time to think about what you're doing, and not just follow the commands of some alleged "spiritual leader".

If this was entirely the case, then why didn't Jesus simply command his audience to go read the Torah and figure it out for themselves instead of deferring them to the authority of the Pharisees:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice"