Sola Scriptura?

Status
Not open for further replies.

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, and informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

My thoughts are that that is a great observation, and it's a shame that folks don't realize their prejudice in this.

Their added problem is that the voices they are listening to are much further removed from the Apostles who established the Church to begin with.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Their added problem is that the voices they are listening to are much further removed from the Apostles who established the Church to begin with.

Another issue is that Protestant thought is dizzyingly diverse. Some advocate near-asceticism, other urge folks to pray for money, Lamborghinis, and health. Some teach one eschatology, some another, and not everyone can be right, and some of these points are not minor or yet to be played out.

But no Protestant attends seminary and uses only the Bible.... There's tonnes of commentaries, books, lectures, and papers used to guide the student in the hopefully correct application and interpretation of Scripture. What's the diff?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why?
I found Scripture to be the ONLY RELIABLE SOURCE ever since, well, ALWAYS.

I agree that Scripture is 100% reliable, Sir. It's just that Protestants, too, interpret and apply Scripture based on a different library of Tradition, whether Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Quaker, Anabaptist, Baptist, Methodist, or Armstrongian.

It's basically the same thing as Catholics and Orthodox interpreting and living out Scripture based on their own Traditions, only those Traditions can be traced back 2,000 years as opposed to 500, 200, 100, or 50.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I agree that Scripture is 100% reliable, Sir. It's just that Protestants, too, interpret and apply Scripture based on a different library of Tradition, whether Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Quaker, Anabaptist, Baptist, Methodist, or Armstrongian.

It's basically the same thing as Catholics and Orthodox interpreting and living out Scripture based on their own Traditions, only those Traditions can be traced back 2,000 years as opposed to 500, 200, 100, or 50.
Good.
Now re-read what you just posted, and it is simple to see why NOT to listen to people's opinions nor traditions;
except you test them and verify they are true and not in any way opposed to SCRIPTURE.
Y'SHUA made this point always, as did the Apostles and disciples,
as did all the Prophets sent by YHWH.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Morghaine
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree that Scripture is 100% reliable, Sir. It's just that Protestants, too, interpret and apply Scripture based on a different library of Tradition, whether Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Quaker, Anabaptist, Baptist, Methodist, or Armstrongian.
That's completely wrong.

Or, shall I say, that's a mistaken use of the word "Tradition."

Every society has some traditions (note: not capitalized). But "Tradition" (note: capitalized but not plural) refers to the presumption that a continuous historical record of opinions, customs, folklore, and the like actually is divine revelation, as authoritative and infallible as the Bible, essential for salvation, and fully equal to Holy Scripture.

So, no! Anglicans, Lutherans, Quakers, Anabaptists, Methodists, et al most definitely do not subscribe to that theory! :preach:
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's completely wrong.

Or, shall I say, that's a mistaken use of the word "Tradition."

Every society has some traditions (note: not capitalized). But "Tradition" (note: capitalized but not plural) refers to the presumption that a continuous historical record of opinions, customs, folklore, and the like actually is divine revelation, as authoritative and infallible as the Bible, essential for salvation, and fully equal to Holy Scripture.

So, no! Anglicans, Lutherans, Quakers, Anabaptists most definitely do not subscribe to that theory! :preach:

But you guys do use other's theologies, ideas, theories about Christian history, and musings to interpret and apply the contents of Scripture. I've never been in a Catholic or Orthodox study, but every Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist pastor's office I've ever stepped into is chock full of books, commentaries, and encyclopedias of information which they presumably turn to in order to understand and explain Scripture, to themselves and to their flock.

So functionally, what's the difference?
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
So functionally, what's the difference?
It is where you look/ or seek and keep seeking.
If you find someone doing what others do, and it's wrong,
keep seeking. Never stop seeking YHWH'S KINGDOM, HIS WILL, and testing everything by HIS WORD, as HE SAYS, in continual prayer.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Morghaine
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

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good.
Now re-read what you just posted, and it is simple to see why NOT to listen to people's opinions nor traditions;
except you test them and verify they are true and not in any way opposed to SCRIPTURE.
Y'SHUA made this point always, as did the Apostles and disciples,
as did all the Prophets sent by YHWH.

But each of us, sitting down to read Revelation, and asked to jot down our thoughts or opinions, will write down completely different and possibly contradictary things. Both of us can't be right.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
But each of us, sitting down to read Revelation, and asked to jot down our thoughts or opinions, will write down completely different and possibly contradictary things. Both of us can't be right.
Read after praying, JOHN 17; Y'SHUA'S PRAYER for HIS disciples.
Nothing could be more simple.
Men just keep messing up.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But you guys do use other's theologies, ideas, theories about Christian history, and musings to interpret and apply the contents of Scripture.
Sure, but that's not Holy Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition. Therefore, it's a mistake to say that even the Sola Scriptura churches use tradition/Tradition LIKE THE CATHOLICS DO. No, they do not. And interpretation of Scripture is not a denial of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a POV about what is the ultimate authority for necessary doctrine. It doesn't define the interpretation of it, just that it (rather than something else like the Pope's declarations, custom, what Aquinas said or any of that) holds the answer.

I've never been in a Catholic or Orthodox study, but every Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist pastor's office I've ever stepped into is chock full of books, commentaries, and encyclopedias of information which they presumably turn to in order to understand and explain Scripture, to themselves and to their flock.
Indeed, but that's not Tradition.

So functionally, what's the difference?
Catholics consider the Bible BUT ALSO custom, legend, learned opinion, etc. to be what determines doctrine.

Protestants consider the Bible to stand alone, although reason, emotion, and church history may assist us in understanding what the Bible is teaching.

See the diff?
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Another issue is that Protestant thought is dizzyingly diverse. Some advocate near-asceticism, other urge folks to pray for money, Lamborghinis, and health. Some teach one eschatology, some another, and not everyone can be right, and some of these points are not minor or yet to be played out.

But no Protestant attends seminary and uses only the Bible.... There's tonnes of commentaries, books, lectures, and papers used to guide the student in the hopefully correct application and interpretation of Scripture. What's the diff?

That's the small part of your point I was replying to.

Appealing to Tradition, an argument against it will often be "that's not in the Bible!" But what the person putting forth that argument fails to realize, and generally refuses to admit, is that his own theology is rife with statements and beliefs that are "not in the Bible".

They are generally based on the Bible, and as such, represent someone's interpretation of it.

But much of what Tradition provides is a lens through which to interpret Scripture.

So to the degree these are compared, it is a fair comparison. But who is doing one's interpreting? Someone from 500 years ago? Someone who had a dream yesterday? Someone who found a neat connection between two things and built a sermon on it two weeks ago? Some such things can be edifying and good - to that degree I won't criticize them.

But when they fly in the face of what the Apostles taught, what the early Church practiced and believed, then imo there comes a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But each of us, sitting down to read Revelation, and asked to jot down our thoughts or opinions, will write down completely different and possibly contradictary things. Both of us can't be right.
That's correct. However, Sola Scriptura and/or Tradition doesn't deal with that. When we use these terms, we're referring to what it is that the person is interpreting when he decides what we must believe. First you have to know where the answer is. Then you have to understand what it is telling you. In this discussion about Sola Scriptura, we're dealing with the issue of whether it's the Bible or something else that is authoritative, doctrine-wise.
 
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

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
"Tradition" (note: capitalized but not plural) refers to the presumption that a continuous historical record of opinions, customs, folklore, and the like actually is divine revelation, as authoritative and infallible as the Bible, essential for salvation, and fully equal to Holy Scripture.

That is not the way Orthodox would define Tradition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That is not the way Orthodox would define Tradition.
You are correct that the Orthodox would describe this somewhat differently, although still being committed to Tradition. The Orthodox view has produced considerable FEWER doctrines by use of Tradition than the Roman Catholics, which I think owes to a more consistent use of Tradition. Given that the Roman Church has a central authority to proclaim what the church has decided to dogmatize (supposedly because of Tradition), it has enunciated more doctrines. Orthodoxy, for not having a Papal kind of leader and not being willing to consider any council called and attended by only its own people to be 'Ecumenical' (and therefore infallible) has been much more restrained.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure, but that's not Holy Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition. Therefore, it's a mistake to say that even the Sola Scriptura churches use tradition/Tradition LIKE THE CATHOLICS DO. No, they do not. And interpretation of Scripture is not a denial of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a POV about what is the ultimate authority for necessary doctrine. It doesn't define the interpretation of it, just that it (rather than something else like the Pope's declarations, custom, what Aquinas said or any of that) holds the answer.


Indeed, but that's not Tradition.


Catholics consider the Bible BUT ALSO custom, legend, learned opinion, etc. to be what determines doctrine.

Protestants consider the Bible to stand alone, although reason, emotion, and church history may assist us in understanding what the Bible is teaching.

See the diff?

Not really. Because Protestants similarly appeal to the thoughts of men. Even when these thoughts contradict something the Scriptures command or forbid. It's functionally the exact same thing, whether you call it Tradition, tradition, reason, or something else.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Not really. Because Protestants similarly appeal to the thoughts of men.
"Appealing to the thoughts of men" isn't the issue when we're talking about "Tradition." Read my explanation of Tradition again, please, because I'm not sure how much more explicitly I can put it.

Even when these thoughts contradict something the Scriptures command or forbid. It's functionally the exact same thing, whether you call it Tradition, tradition, reason, or something else.
Not in the least.

However, I think part of the problem here may be that the way you've worded it here ("appealing to the thoughts of men") is so vague that it's not clear what you mean to say by it. If you mean that whatever legend was believed by some people in the past is good enough to be added to the list of church doctrines and made binding upon the people although there is nothing in the Bible about it, I have to say that's Tradition all right but it's what Sola Scriptura rightly condemned. However, if you mean only that men--linguists, Bible experts, theologians, etc. --might be consulted when it comes to INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE, then we're closer.
 
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

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Read after praying, JOHN 17; Y'SHUA'S PRAYER for HIS disciples.
Nothing could be more simple.
Men just keep messing up.

I agree that men just keep messing up, Sir. But even in movements that struggle to get back to the hypothetical roots of Christianity, whether Restorationist, Torah-observant, Hebraic, or Mennonite interpret and live out the contents of Scripture in light of other's writings or their own ideas and interpretations. It's a constantly evolving series of cultures based on interpretation and there's not a whole lot of unity.

I'm not trying to knock these groups, just pointing out that Protestants and other non-Catholic / non-Orthodox do essentially the same thing that these Churches do, only they describe it differently. So it functionally comes down to the same thing. And it's not *technically* Sola Scriptura. Because everyone interprets through some lens. Even their own.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.