The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Larry Wilgus]

The "three-legged stool analogy" actually does answer it. For SS churches, the sole authority is claimed to be the same (Holy Scripture) but the doctrines derived from it differ, even in essentials. This is a problem for the validity of SS as a hermeneutic principle. For the "three-legged stools", Scripture is the same but the other two legs are different. Thus the differences do not invalidate the principle, they simply highlight that those other two "legs" do make a difference.

You reasoning is completely bogus! Scripture can stand on its own. It doesn't need another leg that contradicts what God intended us to know about Him.

 

[Larry Wilgus]

Nobody said the traditions of man. We said Holy Traditions, which are different.



Yes, in it's entirety. The Septuagint aka Greek Bible. NOT the Hebrew Bible which dismissed the 7 books now called the Apocrypha.

The Bible can stand on its own. It doesn't need additional books called the Apocrypha that discredit what Jesus did at the cross.

 

[Larry Wilgus]

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?(Answer: The Catholic Church)

How do you know what is scripture without tradition?

The Bible clearly teaches that the traditions of men make the Word of God void in their lives. I think I'd heed to that verse, and discard immediately any tradition that contradicts the Bible. God doesn't need man's foolish traditions.

 

[MichaelS]

Since you won't and can't prove that you have another source of incontrovertible truth; How about you just provide one doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture.

That is not at all necessary. Let us look at a salvation-related doctrine that is in Scripture - baptism.

Is baptism necessary for salvation, or is it optional? SS churches differ. Is baptism by immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling, or are they all acceptable? Is the immersion/pouring/sprinkling done once, or three times in succession, or does that even matter? Can infants properly be baptized, or must the one baptized be old enough to make their own confession of faith? Can anyone in the church baptize, or must it be a preacher, elder, or other "official" person?

I have seen all of these differing positions justified by reference to Scripture. Which interpretations are correct? How do we make that determination? If Sola Scriptura is correct, why is there such confusion on this issue?

 

[Albion]

That is not at all necessary. Let us look at a salvation-related doctrine that is in Scripture - baptism.

Is baptism necessary for salvation, or is it optional? SS churches differ. Is baptism by immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling, or are they all acceptable? Is the immersion/pouring/sprinkling done once, or three times in succession, or does that even matter? Can infants properly be baptized, or must the one baptized be old enough to make their own confession of faith? Can anyone in the church baptize, or must it be a preacher, elder, or other "official" person?

I have seen all of these differing positions justified by reference to Scripture. Which interpretations are correct? How do we make that determination? If Sola Scriptura is correct, why is there such confusion on this issue?

Well, I've read a lot of posts lately from people who condemned Sola Scriptura but couldn't defend its alternative or ANY alternative, for that matter. But this one takes the prize. Not only are you unable to identify a single essential doctrine that is not from Scripture but you make no bones about it, immediately changing the subject by rehashing a list of erroneous statements about the meaning of Sola Scriptura that we have repeatedly shown to be false. To be fair, you're new around here and may not know that this disinformation has been thoroughly discredited already.

 

[MichaelS]

No. But you have to think this through. Is the NT part of Holy Scripture or not? ... If you say "Yes," then you cannot also say that the verse in question doesn't apply to the whole of Scripture, just as every other part of the OT is still considered to be divine revelation and in force unless specifically superseded by something in the NT.

Not at all. To argue that, just because the NT is now accepted as Holy Scripture, every NT verse that uses the word "Scripture" (Greek graphee) must necessarily refer to the NT as well as the OT is not justifiable. Otherwise, as I noted, we would have to assume that Timothy knew the NT from infancy even though it hadn't been written yet, because Paul said "from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures".

Statements in the Bible must be understood in the context they were written.

Now we're into the realm of personal opinion and liberal theology, meaning that one person's POV is as good as the next one's.

Again, not at all. Historical context - for example, the fact that II Timothy was written around 64AD while Paul was in prison awaiting martyrdom - is neither a matter of "personal opinion" nor of "liberal theology", though in some cases there are legitimate questions about details of dating and whatnot. But while each of the Scriptures is not only relevant within its historical context, it cannot be divorced from that context either.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Well, I've read a lot of posts lately from people who condemned Sola Scriptura but couldn't defend its alternative or ANY alternative, for that matter. But this one takes the prize. Not only are you unable to identify a single essential doctrine that is not from Scripture but you make no bones about it, immediately changing the subject by rehashing a list of erroneous statements about the meaning of Sola Scriptura that we have repeatedly shown to be false. To be fair, you're new around here and may not know that this disinformation has been thoroughly discredited already.

The test of SS is NOT whether there are essential doctrines from outside of Scripture, but whether Scripture alone is sufficient to correctly understand the doctrines. MichaelS raises a solid example.

Which form of Baptism do you believe is required? How can we know which is right? Which church is correct? They all have the same Scripture regarding Baptism.

 

[MichaelS]

Not only are you unable to identify a single essential doctrine that is not from Scripture but you make no bones about it

I said it was unnecessary to do so. If Sola Scriptura is a true hermeneutic principle, then not only is it necessary that every essential doctrine be found in Scripture, but it is also necessary that the essential elements of those doctrines must be able to be correctly understood and interpreted without needing recourse to any authority outside Scripture itself. I simply provided one example of a doctrine where this second necessity is not found in practice.

 

[MichaelS]

You reasoning is completely bogus! Scripture can stand on its own. It doesn't need another leg that contradicts what God intended us to know about Him.

To push the stool analogy, there is no "contradiction" when you're on the "right stool". The Scriptures are rightly interpreted by Holy Tradition, both of which are safeguarded and embraced by the Church. If there is contradiction, your stool "falls over"; you lose the capital letters and merely have "traditions" (of men) and a "church".

 

[Albion]

The test of SS is NOT whether there are essential doctrines from outside of Scripture, but whether Scripture alone is sufficient to correctly understand the doctrines.

I think you'll have to explain what you mean by 'correctly understand' there. SS doesn't predict how any passage will be understood. The point is that this is the material to use when attempting to understand.

Which form of Baptism do you believe is required? How can we know which is right? Which church is correct? They all have the same Scripture regarding Baptism.

There are two problems with that approach. For one, SS is concerned with the source of the answer, not the ease with which we discern it. And two, this objection applies just as much or more to Holy Tradition which we are constantly being told by our Catholic friends solves all problems of doctrine. As I've pointed out before, no two of the churches that use Holy Tradition have the same doctrines, although they all used Tradition to come up with the ones each has. Why then, is there a special doubting of Scripture when the suggested alternative is less capable?

 

[MichaelS]

I think you'll have to explain what you mean by 'correctly understand' there. SS doesn't predict how any passage will be understood. The point is that this is the material to use when attempting to understand.

Well, that clears up at least one thing. We're not talking about the same thing when we refer to SS.

 

[MichaelS]

As I've pointed out before, no two of the churches that use Holy Tradition have the same doctrines, although they all used Tradition to come up with the ones each has. Why then, is there a special doubting of Scripture when the suggested alternative is less capable?

OK, I think now I see why you would think we have a "special doubting of Scripture", when in fact there is no such thing (at least from the Orthodox perspective; I can't speak for Roman Catholics on that point).

For the place of the Scriptures in Orthodox theology, I can't come up with a better way to put it than this quote from the website of the Orthodox Church in America:

The Bible is central in the life of the Church and gives both form and content to the Church’s liturgical and sacramental worship, just as to its theology and spiritual life. Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical.

However, it isn't enough to just say "Everything in the Church must be biblical" if there is no agreement on what it means to "be biblical". The Scriptures need to be interpreted, and they do not interpret themselves. Again from the OCA website:

The Bible itself, however, not only determines and judges the life of the Church, but is itself judged by the Church since it “comes alive” and receives its proper interpretation and significance only within the life of the Church as actually lived and experienced by the People of God.

To clarify, the Bible is not "judged by the Church" in the sense of a defendant being judged by a court, but rather in the sense of a court judging how the law applies to this or that kind of situation. And the Church uses Holy Tradition in making such judgements, which acts as a safeguard against anti-biblical innovations.

 

[theDevolutionist]

I am surprised that no one has brought this up, but there is an important bit of Paul's instruction to Timothy left off in the OP's quote:

2 Timothy 3

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So the Bible does seem to give a pretty solid indication that the Scriptures do contain all the knowledge that is needed for practical Christian living and to equip us for spiritual battle (again, in terms of revelation / knowledge; not to say that prayer, fasting or other spiritual disciplines are unimportant).

Even during the apostolic era, we find that the large majority of the decisions made in the New Testament Church recorded in Acts or the Epistles were made by studying the Scriptures and obtaining wise council. Relatively few were made under direction of immediate and unambiguous revelation.

As far as hermeneutics are concerned, the best approach is to let Scripture interpret Scripture wherever we can - as the Bereans were commended for doing. Systems of theology are good for helping us to organize our thoughts on major spiritual themes but also carry the danger of propagating error as we come to rely on them to interpret Scripture for us.

 

[Gary Downey]

Wolf, your reason and logic is right on target. Sadly there are many who reject or even despise the Catholic Church so much that reason and logic is tossed out the window. Protestants just can't grasp or they are not willing to understand the definition and concept of the word Church. There is no singular for the word church in protestantism. Protestantism is full of churches. What they fail to understand is that Jesus Christ only uses the singular form of the word Church and He only refers to it twice in all of the New Testament. First in Matthew 16:18 then once again in Matthew 18:17. Paul calls the Church the pillar and foundation of Truth in 1st Tim 3:15 again singular. Cardinal John Henry Newman (a protestant convert to Catholicism) said it best, "to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant". You will get all kinds of twisted answers in this forum. Every single one ignoring history, facts and reason. The truth will be bent and twisted in so many directions that the truth becomes unrecognizable. Protestantism by its very nature is a system of chaos and disunity with regards to teachings. The complete opposite of the Holy Trinity and the nature of God. Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time. The problem with protestantism is it only dates back 500 years. But they will deny that as well. I'll leave you with this thought: "unity is the sign of the Holy Spirit, disunity is a sign of the devil. The disunity of teachings rein supreme in the world of Protestantism. It is not the work of the Holy Spirit, of this much I'm absolutly certain.

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

 

[MichaelS]

I am surprised that no one has brought this up, but there is an important bit of Paul's instruction to Timothy left off in the OP's quote:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So the Bible does seem to give a pretty solid indication that the Scriptures do contain all the knowledge that is needed for practical Christian living and to equip us for spiritual battle (again, in terms of revelation / knowledge; not to say that prayer, fasting or other spiritual disciplines are unimportant).

This interpretation assumes that Paul is not presuming any necessary pre-existing knowledge, training or the like for the "man of God". That seems highly unlikely. The "man of God" would be living in the Church, taught by her leaders, absorbing the interpretive framework that will allow him to make proper use of the Scriptures. Anyone coming to the Scriptures outside of that framework is as likely as not to bear more resemblance to this passage from 2 Peter 3:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Similarly, I could say that a top-notch set of carpenter's tools will make a master carpenter "complete and thoroughly equipped for every type of carpentry", but they won't do much of anything for a plumber. He hasn't been trained in their use.

Even during the apostolic era, we find that the large majority of the decisions made in the New Testament Church recorded in Acts or the Epistles were made by studying the Scriptures and obtaining wise council. Relatively few were made under direction of immediate and unambiguous revelation.

Indeed. In fact, Holy Tradition can be thought of as an accumulation of that "wise council" that allowed proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

As far as hermeneutics are concerned, the best approach is to let Scripture interpret Scripture wherever we can - as the Bereans were commended for doing. Systems of theology are good for helping us to organize our thoughts on major spiritual themes but also carry the danger of propagating error as we come to rely on them to interpret Scripture for us.

To quibble, the Bereans were not commended for "letting Scripture interpret Scripture." They were commended because they "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

To "let Scripture interpret Scripture" does not bypass the need for an interpretive framework, because we cannot do it without determining which passage(s) is(are) the one(s) which needs interpreting, and which is(are) the one(s) to use to do the interpretation. To say "the clear should interpret the obscure" doesn't help much - as one example, there are passages which seem to clearly teach predestination, and others that seem to clearly teach free will. Which ones should interpret which? Calvinists and Arminians obviously come to different conclusions on that point. To go back to my carpentry analogy - the tools cannot teach you how they are to be used.

 

[theDevolutionist]

This interpretation assumes that Paul is not presuming any necessary pre-existing knowledge, training or the like for the "man of God". That seems highly unlikely. The "man of God" would be living in the Church, taught by her leaders, absorbing the interpretive framework that will allow him to make proper use of the Scriptures. Anyone coming to the Scriptures outside of that framework is as likely as not to bear more resemblance to this passage from 2 Peter 3

I would say that the letter to the Hebrews fairly forcefully and unequivocally repudiates the formal priesthood definition of "man of God." So does Paul's letter to Timothy in the same context as the previous quote:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Bible also warns us not to be like the gentiles / unbelievers who lord it over one another.

Similarly, I could say that a top-notch set of carpenter's tools will make a master carpenter "complete and thoroughly equipped for every type of carpentry", but they won't do much of anything for a plumber. He hasn't been trained in their use.

Again, in the light of the strong warnings in the Book of Hebrews regarding establishing or maintaining a formal priesthood, I would argue that such are no more men of God than anyone else and are in fact in danger of eternal condemnation (see Hebrews 10:26 - in context the "sin" referred to is a rejection of grace in favor of systems of sacrifice, sacraments and works for salvation - trying to push the Holy of Holies back behind the veil that was recorded as torn).

Indeed. In fact, Holy Tradition can be thought of as an accumulation of that "wise council" that allowed proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

Tradition is not the same thing as wise council. The Pharisees had plenty of tradition, yet lacked wisdom in the things that mattered most.

To quibble, the Bereans were not commended for "letting Scripture interpret Scripture." They were commended because they "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Granted, but since the things being spoken of by Paul were making their way into Scripture, the principle holds.

To "let Scripture interpret Scripture" does not bypass the need for an interpretive framework, because we cannot do it without determining which passage(s) is(are) the one(s) which needs interpreting, and which is(are) the one(s) to use to do the interpretation. To say "the clear should interpret the obscure" doesn't help much - as one example, there are passages which seem to clearly teach predestination, and others that seem to clearly teach free will. Which ones should interpret which? Calvinists and Arminians obviously come to different conclusions on that point. To go back to my carpentry analogy - the tools cannot teach you how they are to be used.

I could go into a lengthy dissertation on this topic, but I won't. Suffice to say that I believe both Dortian Calvinism and Arminianism are deeply flawed in their interpretation of scripture and both have wrenched the scriptures horribly out of context to fit their systems rather than fixing their systems to fit the scriptures. This actually helps make my point. Disciples of Christ should strive to read the scriptures afresh and should question what they are being taught. Tradition may be old, and it may be nearly universally accepted and yet still be wrong. Confessions and catechisms should be evaluated in the light of Scripture, not the converse.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I think you'll have to explain what you mean by 'correctly understand' there. SS doesn't predict how any passage will be understood. The point is that this is the material to use when attempting to understand.



There are two problems with that approach. For one, SS is concerned with the source of the answer, not the ease with which we discern it. And two, this objection applies just as much or more to Holy Tradition which we are constantly being told by our Catholic friends solves all problems of doctrine. As I've pointed out before, no two of the churches that use Holy Tradition have the same doctrines, although they all used Tradition to come up with the ones each has. Why then, is there a special doubting of Scripture when the suggested alternative is less capable?

By "correctly understand" I mean understanding what God intends to communicate in contrast to human understanding.

 

[Righttruth]

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

SS is book idolatry. Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to remind us of His teaching. So all writings should complement the preaching of Jesus. If not, they need to be ignored.

 

[Razare]

I never stated otherwise, what I am talking about is not Scripture, but the concept of Sola Scriptura which are not the same.

I bothered to learn what Sola Scriptura is. That there is a word for this, is a proclamation of everything that is wrong with all Christendom... but this is off-topic.

If you "never said otherwise" then the issue arises that we have God's word in hand, it says:

The Word became flesh - John 1:14

The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. - Luke 6:40

And so with the master / teacher relationship, the word is exalted above us, and upholds "the doctrine that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Because the scripture is God's word, which is the same word in John 1:14.

Now, where this all went awry was men decided what the scriptures said, apart from what scripture and God was saying it said.

 

[bcbsr]

Catholicism had its origin in the cult of the circumcision, tinkering with the gospel to make up their own gospel. Their claim to authority and infallibility is illegitimate. We note that "the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11 That is, Christians are to scrutinize all things in light of established scripture.

When scrutinized we find Catholic theology to be significantly deviant from scriptural theology. In fact Catholicism is about as far from scriptural Christianity as is Islam. But Catholicism has gotten away with its heresies because of this fallacious claim to infallibility and its insistence that it not be scrutinized.

It is written,
"Do not let anyone lead you astray." 1John 3:7
"Let no one deceive you with empty words" Eph 5:6

How is one to carry that out with regards to Catholic theology?

See proof
The Origin of the Catholic Apostate Church
Catholicism