Was Martin Luther wrong about people being able to interpret the Bible for themselves (Sola Scriptura)?

Question

Read Yahoo Answers Religion section and show me a consensus.

Answer 1

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible.

Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.


Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.

Answer 2

At the end of John's gospel he writes:

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

The scriptures themselves testify to the fact that not everything Jesus said and did is included in the New Testament. This implies that there are truths that can be found outside scripture. This should be self evident if you look at modern moral issues such as contraception, human cloning and stem cell research. The Bible is true, but we are allowed to use our human reason to extend and establish additional truths. As well the Church, whose members authored and authorized the Bible, has the authority to interpret scripture based on tradition. Martin Luther's declaration of Sola Scriptura was part of his larger campaign to alienate people from the Catholic Church, which excommunicated him when his teachings became too radical. This is why so many of his doctrines are opposed to Catholicism and reject Church authority.

Answer 3

Yes he was very wrong indeed, Luther and the other Protestant reformers did not possess the teaching authority that came down through the Apostolic Office and so they did not have the Apostolic kerygma to interpret sacred scripture.
This kergyma belonged to the Apostles and their successors the Bishops of the Catholic church and this truth was guarded by the Holy Spirit.
We have seen the results of this error down through the decades by incompetent theologians who have downgraded the miracles of Jesus to purely human agencies; i.e the feeding of the five thousand with the barley loaves and fish, now it is held that the miracle was simply that Jesus shamed the crowd into sharing the food they had brought with them.
Again the error of teaching that Jesus had blood brothers when in fact the term brothers and sisters refered to the believers themselves, many Christians call each other brother or sister and yet are not related at all.
There are many errors being taught today and this can be traced right back to Luther,Calvin etc.

Answer 4

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible. The Bible is not the sole infallible guide to Christian doctrine and practice. The Bible itself says divine revelation is transmitted in three ways: Sacred Scripture, Scared Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. Divine revelation did not stop after the Bible was published.

Christianity is not a religion of the book (Bible) it is a religion of the Word (Christ).

Peace and blessings!

Answer 5

Traditions that are based on, and are in agreement with God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or are in disagreement with God’s Word, must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

Answer 6

Yes he was. Everyone who believes that the god of Moses is the same as the God of Jesus does not know the difference between good and evil. god in the o.t. does not manifest any of the fruits of the spirit or known attributes of God, not one. Be smart, read Jesus correct account of creation in The Apocryphon of John and have your eyes and ears opened for the first time.