A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[Sean_Boyle]

Plus I’m really the Sola Man!!

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Scriptura!!

How many “____ alone” statements can a tradition claim before the “alone” claim isn’t really true?

After one “____alone” statements, doesn’t the “alone” claim cease to exist in a literial sense?

Any chance this error can be corrected by your tradition. Something is off.

 

[Philthy]

LOL!! Of course those under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can teach new things or expand on things already taught, But answer me this. How do you know Christ taught, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” ? Can you give me a quote from Christ that is not in Scripture?
If I did, could you prove me wrong?

But they became Scripture once he wrote them down. What is your point?

I just wanted to comment on this statement - not necessarily looking for a debate. It is an odd thing to consider that Paul spoke what was later to become recognized as the “word of God”, 1Cor7:12 " To the rest **I say (not the Lord):…**he should not divorce her" Paul is saying that it is NOT the Lords words, but his. But it IS the “word of God” by virtue of the fact that it is Holy Scripture, no? Why would Paul make such a distinction? Doesn’t it become the word of God by virtue of the fact that it is recorded in Holy Scripture?? Or did it not become the word of God until the Church declared it as such?
Either way, it seems to alter the concept of Scripture as the “word of God” somewhat.

 

[mikeledes]

No, the words do not mean the same thing. If I take a test and make a 100 on it( which I often do ), I was inerrant on that test. However, I was not infallible, because I could have made a number of mistakes it just happened that I didn’t on that occasion. Infallibility rules out the possibility of making an error. I noticed you didn’t answer my question, but instead asked more of your own. As a matter of fact I have answered this question a number of times already. So why don’t you answer my question? Do you have infallible knowledge that the books in your canon is correct?

I have the assurance of faith which is functionally the same as infallible knowledge. So the people who discerned the Canon could have made a mistake, but they, by chance, did not make any?

Also, one Protestant idea closely related to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is self-interpreting. And yet, Protestants disagree on what this means.

This site denies that illumination by the Holy Spirit is necessary to undertsand the Bible.

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-illumination-holy-spirit-individual.htm

This site says that it is:

your-study-bible-online.org/the-bible-is-the-book-of-the-covenant.html

Here is a quote from the second webite listed, which directly contradicts the other one:

The Bible is self-interpreting IF you have the right equipment. God’s covenant is so powerful that it creates a whole new life in you born out of His own Spirit. Without his Spirit, the Bible is just rules and confusing stories.

This is condemned by the first website I listed, a firm defender of Sola Scriptura, as a “false doctrine.” So if every Christian has the Holy Spirit, why is it that they cannot agree on what a self-interpreting Bible means, the role of baptism in our salvation and the appropriate age to receive it, the Lord’s Supper, whether salvation is assured to the believer (i.e. perseverance of the saints, eternal security) or not (Arminianism, Wesleyans, etc.), etc.

There are issues that are unclear in theology in which Catholics are allowed to hold various theories. Yet they must accept the parameters established by the Church. But it seems that almost nothing in the Bible is clear. Protestants say that justification is by faith alone. But what is faith? Calvinists will say that faith is not an act of the will, but a gift given to the elect. Anything other than that would be salvation by human effort. Arminians will say that faith is a human act of the will and is accessible to all. Once we are justified, is that an irrevocable declaration or can it be lost. Calvinists and most Baptists will say yes, while Wesleyans and Pentecostals will say no.

This is an interesting article pointed out by another forum member in another thread:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp

There is no unity on essentials among Protestants. And what are these essentials and who defines them as such? Is there a list in the Bible? Protestants don’t even agree among themselves what these essentials are.

God bless,
Michael