The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant “Reformation.” (1) in response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.
We all understand the importance of Sacred Scripture but as a former person who once accepted the teaching of Sola Scriptura - I struggled with the various interpretations from it.
So for those who accept this teaching - who do you turn to when two interpretations conflict with another?
Well The Church is the pillar of Truth 1Tim 3;15
Correct but my question was for those who accept the teachings of Sola Scriptura?
As a Southern Baptist I found my church often divided on certain issues and the church would split and form two different churches - sometimes within the walls and at other times literally some members would actually leave and form a new church.
Happens in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and others as well. Smaller groups to be sure but it does happen.
In reality, the same thing happens in ALL groups. If they do not like or agree with the teachings, they go elsewhere or form a new group.
The reality being that the groups would contend they have the correct teaching. I do not suppose any of the other apostolic groups would suggest they are not the ones who hold to the original deposit of faith. On the same note, those who adhere to Sola Scriptura would contend in many cases they have the only thing (scripture) that can be trusted. I suppose the groups that do not adhere to SS but some form of scripture and tradition would then contend they hold to the correct combination of apostolic succession/tradition/interpretation of scripture.
NO Your statement is wrong all RCC teach one doctrine all 1.4 billion of them.
I am not sure what you mean. Your statement does not appear to be related to my post. Or perhaps your comment was not direct at me?
You** seem **to be saying that all Catholics believe the same thing…
That would be another topic I suppose.
Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore
Yes all RCC believe the same thing
Isn’t it true, Bill, that in things not dogmatically defined, or at least not doctrine, that Catholics are free to hold varying views?
STM that complaining of other Christians for their doctrines & practices, when the complainant belongs to a Church with the same problems - & what Church is free of them ? - is plain silly. It’s self-righteous too - & when was that a Christian value ? And who gains by “putting down” other Churches anyway ? No one, that’s who :(:eek:
If there were not diversity of ideas & interpretations & beliefs among Christians, the Church might be much weaker. A Church that allows of no disagreement is a Church in danger of being self-satisfied with its seeming perfection; & Church in love with itself like that is not likely to be a Church that is open to God. Our differences may be much better for us than than if we saw eye to eye on all matters without exception.
My considered opinionhttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Hello Brian. Do you think you could enlarge on this subject about Catholics and Orthodox splintering? I am not entire sure what you are trying to convey. Thanks!
It means that everyone forms new groups. No matter what they adhere to. Sola Scriptura. Yep. Scripture AND Tradition? Yep. Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Yep. That is what is means. I do not attach a superior or inferior connatation to it. Rather, it is just the way it is.
Ok. The statement was made that Sola Scriptura churches split. Yes. This is true.
I am pointing out the same thing happens to Christian groups that are not Sola Scriptura. The degree and frequency differ obviously.
I can find hundreds of groups that have apostolic succession; or say they do and certainly I am not going to go through all of them to ascertain to what degree that is accurate. I would have no reason to.
So is the contention that Sola Scriptura are the only groups that split? No but I suppose the Apostolic groups resemble each other more than Protestant groups. In some cases, true once again.
I am not sure how much more to elaborate.
It seems that Christians manage to divide no matter what their deposit of faith/source of truth encompasses. Heck even the inner light cannot keep the Quakers together…