Speaking as a Presbyterian (more of a free-agent Protestant), I find the idea of sola scriptura a bit lacking.
First, it was the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church that closed the scriptures in the first place. To uphold the idea of sola scriptura is at once a rebuke of and validation of the Catholic Church.
Second, the idea of sola scriptura essentially amounts to the belief that no revelation God could ever make short of the Second Coming is worthy of being recorded as anything more than history or theology. That seems a little suspect to me.
There are certain things that would lead me to stop short of becoming a Catholic, but there is a lot I admire in the Church and its approach. I also tend to refer to anyone not Catholic or Orthodox as a Protestant by default.
I know you’ll enjoy reading this.
Next time Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson have a “revelation”, I’ll remind you to take notes.
***First, it was the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church that closed the scriptures in the first place.***
Incorrect. It was the Holy Spirit that closed the canon of Scripture. The Church only acknowledge what God had already done. To declare the Church to have CLOSED the canon is to declare that MEN told God to shut up.
Yeah, right!!!
***To uphold the idea of sola scriptura is at once a rebuke of and validation of the Catholic Church.***
If you think that Sola Scriptura is a validation of the Catholic Church, then you have absolutely NO idea what Sola Scripture is. Sola Scriptura is a repudiation of the claim of the Catholic Church’s supremacy and infallibility.
***Second, the idea of sola scriptura essentially amounts to the belief that no revelation God could ever make short of the Second Coming is worthy of being recorded as anything more than history or theology. That seems a little suspect to me.***
Yeah, the canon of Scripture is closed. The Lord has ceased speaking in Special Revelation. If you deny that, then you deny the Westminster Confession of faith, the confession of we Presbyterians.
But, really, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with whether or not God still speaks to men. If you wish to complain that no scripture is being written, then complain to the Catholics. You are the one who stated they closed them.
The Lord still speaks to me. I get “revelations” every day.
Perhaps, “free-agent” is a better description for you than Presbyterian.
With few exceptions, that is generally correct. You will however, find Copts in Egypt, Mormons in America and Protestants who are trying to distance themselves from protestantism by merely calling themselves "Christians".
The assumption used to be that it was understood that everyone was Christian and that the distinction was in the denomination.
Now, all the denominations should call themselves Christian so then the follow-up question can be; what kind of Christian are you?
Those Catholics who "closed the scriptures" were the same ones who identified what was considered "inspired" and "uninspired" writings. In short, they believed in sola scriptura from the same perspectives as the Protestants; every word of scripture was inspired, man's writings are flawed.
What is really being argued by the non-sola scriptura folks is that other writings can be just as inspired as scripture. This is the very reason we have the Bible by the early church fathers. They knew this would happen.
Speaking as a Presbyterian, I've never in my life heard of a Presbyterian denying Sola Scriptura.
What Presbyterian church do you belong to?