How do you feel about Sola Scriptura?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Place your votes! 
assuranceagent
New member
It's probably profitable to define what it is:
Sola Sciptura is the doctrine that states that the Bible is the highest and final authority for church doctrine and practice, and that it stands alone in this position and regard.
Of course you know my vote.
Sola Sciptura is the doctrine that states that the Bible is the highest and final authority for church doctrine and practice, and that it stands alone in this position and regard.
Of course you know my vote.
I was shooting for gut reactions... but that will work too.
And... that's a rather loose definition of the term. Keep in mind Sola Scriptura literally means... by scripture alone, i.e., ONLY scripture (solely scripture).
Either way... I needed a new front page poll so let the voting begin.
assuranceagent
New member
I was shooting for gut reactions... but that will work too.
:thumb:
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Don't you think the Catholic church would have gone right along with this before Luther split from it? I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with the bible being the highest and final authority for the church. I'm sure they thought they were T-totally using scripture only. You can review 50 different denominations and they'd all agree that they hold to this. We can all say "Scripture alone" til the cows come home.
It's how the "Scripture alone" gets interpreted that gets people into trouble. Especially when adding and taking away from "Sola Scriptura" as Luther did.
Christ always appealed to scripture, never to the interpretation of that scripture by the church where the church would have been represented by the Pharisees. In fact, Jesus took the Pharisees to task for interpreting scripture in such a way as to render God's commandments null and void. Since precedent exists in scripture for not accepting the interpretation of scripture by church authorities, I would say the Sola Scriptura is closer to what Jesus intended. Look at what scripture actually says instead of trusting what people say about what scripture says.
Standing on what scripture says is building on a rock. Standing on what a church (any church) has to say about what scripture says is building on sand.
Standing on what scripture says is building on a rock. Standing on what a church (any church) has to say about what scripture says is building on sand.
assuranceagent
New member
Heh...someone didn't read the thread :squint:
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Uh, yes I did.
assuranceagent
New member
oh? Fair enough, my mistake.
I just gathered that from your quote here:
That you must have missed the thread Knight linked where there was a number of us actively involved and only really two of us agreed that we hold to that. The catholics in particular vehemently said that the RCC never went along with it right from the beginning of the church.
Perhaps I just misinterpreted what you meant in the post I quoted. That certainly wouldn't be unheard of.
No hard feelings if you read it, I was just poking fun.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No they would never go along with the title "Sola Scriptura" because it was linked to Martin Luther whom they considered blasphemous. What I'm saying is, don't you think that the Catholic Church would insist that all that they did and said was from scripture as well?
Luther rightly seperated from the traditions and rules of the Church but in the end he only came up with his own traditions, along with omitting and adding to the Scriptures, all the while still crying "Sola Scriptura."
assuranceagent said:No hard feelings if you read it, I was just poking fun.
No worries. :up:
Agape4Robin
Member
Dang it, if I had seen this thread, I would have posted my answer here, but I already posted it in the other sola-thread. :doh:
Last edited:
Prolifeguyswife
New member
Poly, I don't know nearly as much about this as other people on this thread (and not even close to what my husband does), but I think the Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura because they also believe in Ex Cathedra (from the chair), which is the Pope's authority. Everything the Pope says is held in equal authority to scripture. Sorry if someone else already brought this up.
I'd never heard the term before that I can remember. If someone had just come out and said, "I believe scripture can only be interpreted by scripture" I probably wouldn't have had any problem with the idea .. mostly because it sounds so nice...
Sola Scriptura would be great if it didn't include the "sola" part.
That's a law I just can't follow (mainly because it isn't in scripture and therefore breaks it's own command). Sola scriptura is an overstatement of a really good idea. Yet it goes one step too far.
assuranceagent
New member
He keeps saying that as though it's true. :liberals:
assuranceagent
New member
No I don't think that. That's why I had thought you missed the thread Knight linked. Several catholics made it abundantly clear over there that they in now way think that.
Yeah, I won't argue with you that Luther was a flake, but on this point, as you have said, he was right.
Given that within the scriptures we have Christ going back to explain exactly what he meant to those who were directly attentive and closely tied to his teaching...I'd say sometimes a little help with interpretation is self evident.
No then, however inclined I might be toward the idea and however correct I believe it to be in parts.
No then, however inclined I might be toward the idea and however correct I believe it to be in parts.
Interpretation is always subjective.