Sola scriptura?

[fhansen]

Well, then answer me this:

How does reliance upon Holy Tradition solve that problem? While it is true that there are different interpretations people make with Scripture, it is also true that individuals and churches also make all sorts of different interpretations of the information that is supposedly derived from Tradition.

None of the Catholic-type churches which affirm Holy Tradition have the same set of doctrines derived from Holy Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Old Catholics, and the others all have different doctrines, including the ones that they say are true because...Holy Tradition.

One might argue that even though there are more Protestant churches than Catholic ones, they are more in synch with each other in belief, using Scripture, than are the Catholic churches.

To put it more succinctly, your point is erroneous.

Right-but they can't even agree on such things as baptismal regeneration-a matter of soteriolgy. And those kinds of basic beliefs are agreed upon by the east and west, despite centuries of virtual isolation. In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, recently stated that "only historical differences rather than dogmas separate Orthodoxy and Catholicism".

 

[Albion]

Right-but they can't even agree on such things as baptismal regeneration-a matter of soteriolgy.

Hold it. I asked you how you can make the claim that Protestants interpret Scripture all sorts of different ways, all the while believing in Sola Scriptura, BUT that the same disunity exists among those Christians (Catholics) who adhere to Holy Tradition instead of Scripture Alone.

So do you have an answer to this?

 

[concretecamper]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.

The fact Sola Scriptura's meaning varies widely among protestants is proof that it can be confidently considered a folly of an idea. It appears many make up its meaning as they go along, and then are forced to change the meaning after it is refuted.

Also stick with the Catholic bible, it has been the same since the 4th Century.

 

[Radagast]

Also stick with the Catholic bible, it has been the same since the 4th Century.

DRA, RSVCE, NABRE, or something else?

 

[Radagast]

In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, recently stated that "only historical differences rather than dogmas separate Orthodoxy and Catholicism".

Spending time on CF watching Catholic/Orthodox debates shows that that's not quite true.

 

[concretecamper]

DRA, RSVCE, NABRE, or something else?

You are free to read any of the Catholic Bibles you wish ( slightly different translation) They have the SAME books. The same books since the 4th Century ( when the bible canon was decided)

 

[fhansen]

Spending time on CF watching Catholic/Orthodox debates shows that that's not quite true.

What I've observed is that some from the eastern side object, by hair-splitting IMO-and emphasizing old wounds perhaps. The main problem is that one can find no central or unified voice to support an eastern position, just individual commentary for the most part, whereas the official Catholic position is that the EO constitute true Church.

 

[prodromos]

In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, recently stated that "only historical differences rather than dogmas separate Orthodoxy and Catholicism".

And yet not many years ago he stated that Catholics and Orthodox were ontologically different.

 

[fhansen]

And yet not many years ago he stated that Catholics and Orthodox were ontologically different.

Well, whaddaya gonna say? Maybe it's time for a new patriarch. Unity would be a travesty I guess.

 

[prodromos]

Well, whaddaya gonna say? Maybe it's time for a new patriarch. Unity would be a travesty I guess.

False unity, certainly.

 

[mark46]

There are certainly difference between the East and West. The open question is how "serious" these are. Obviously, patriarchs and popes are much closer than the local church leaders.

The Ravenna Document

East and West leaders are very close on issues that most laymen are very far apart on; for example, the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church.

 

[Radagast]

You are free to read any of the Catholic Bibles you wish ( slightly different translation)

Very different, in places. And that's because older Catholic bibles rely on the Vulgate, and more recent ones rely on the Greek and Hebrew.

 

[fhansen]

False unity, certainly.

Certainly. I doubt anyone seriously wants that tho.

 

[concretecamper]

Very different, in places. And that's because older Catholic bibles rely on the Vulgate, and more recent ones rely on the Greek and Hebrew.

it is easy to make such a claim. It is just as easy for me to say you are wrong. However, you provide no information for anyone to look at.

 

[Knee V]

Spending time on CF watching Catholic/Orthodox debates shows that that's not quite true.

Even in Orthodox circles, Patriarch Bartholomew is very polarizing. People tend to either love him and give him their full support, or they want a council to censure him or possibly even depose him; and there is very little middle ground.

 

[fhansen]

Hold it. I asked you how you can make the claim that Protestants interpret Scripture all sorts of different ways, all the while believing in Sola Scriptura, BUT that the same disunity exists among those Christians (Catholics) who adhere to Holy Tradition instead of Scripture Alone.

So do you have an answer to this?

Well you're comparing apples and oranges to begin with. When people of any stripe disagree over Catholicism, they're generally disagreeing with a body of teachings that are set forth with clarity; they're disagreeing with Catholicism IOW. The Church teaches baptismal regeneration, the Church teaches that abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

In the context of a discussion on SS vs sola ecclesia, when Protestants disagree they're disagreeing on the body of teachings themselves, on whether or not Scripture teaches that baptism regenerates, or whether or not it teaches that abortion is wrong. Scripture cannot clarify, explain, or speak for itself, which is why creeds, confessions, catechisms, councils, etc are considered necessary. And this is also where Tradition becomes relevant.

The Church simply acknowledges the fact that an earthly entity is necessary to interpret the sources of revelation.

 

[Albion]

Well you're comparing apples and oranges to begin with. When people of any stripe disagree over Catholicism, they're generally disagreeing with a body of teachings that are set forth with clarity; they're disagreeing with Catholicism IOW. The Church teaches baptismal regeneration, the Church teaches that abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

I have rarely read a more determined evasion than this one. Your argument was that Protestants are divided because of different views concerning Scripture, and yet Catholics are just as divided--or moreso--when it comes to their substitute for Sola Scriptura.

In the context of a discussion on SS vs sola ecclesia, when Protestants disagree they're disagreeing on the body of teachings themselves, on whether or not Scripture teaches that baptism regenerates, or whether or not it teaches that abortion is wrong. Scripture cannot clarify, explain, or speak for itself, which is why creeds, confessions, catechisms, councils, etc are considered necessary. And this is also where Tradition becomes relevant.

If this is "where Tradition becomes relevant," address the issue.

Catholics and the Catholic churches are all over the place in disagreement concerning what they believe Tradition teaches, so that's no different from Protestants disagreeing on how to interpret Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent?

Step 1. Define what it is.

My choice is "test all doctrine to see IF it is in harmony with scripture or is contradicted by scripture"

Isaiah 8:20 "to the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to THIS word they have no light" --- a great example of testing "sola scriptura"

Mark 7:6-13 - a great example of testing "sola scriptura"
Acts 17:11 -- a great example of testing sola scriptura.

I
Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition?

Mark 7:6-13 is a case of hammering tradition "sola scriptura"

 

[fhansen]

I have rarely read a more determined evasion than this one. Your argument was that Protestants are divided because of different views concerning Scripture, and yet Catholics are just as divided--or moreso--when it comes to their substitute for Sola Scriptura.

Nonsense. A main question of this thread is whether or not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is workable as a means of sufficiently determining or ruling on Christian truths and I maintain that, without a designated interpreter, various interpretations are inevitable and give rise to various, significantly different, theologies. Follow this: few disagree on what the RCC actually teaches even if they disagree with those teachings-while many disagree on what Scripture actually teaches. Those are the two authorities we've been discussing. Now if the bible gave a categorized list: regeneration is only possible via baptism, Jesus is supernaturally and really present in the Eucharist, Jesus is deity, baptized infants are qualified for heaven, etc, etc, then we would have no controversy. Instead, Scripture is often vague or sometimes even seemingly contradictory on certain points. To insist otherwise is to bury ones head in the sand. But, I know, truth can be inconvenient.

And whenever anyone insists that they know the truth as opposed to the truth-claims espoused by the RCC or some other denomination or individual, then they are, consciously or not, asserting infallibility for themselves regarding those supernatural truths. The RCC simply and unashamedly maintains that a designated, infallible entity must needs be exist and that the Church, or her offices involved, comprise that entity.

 

[Concord1968]

There's nothing infallible about the RCC, as a multitude of statements made by Pope Franky over the years has made abundantly clear.