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

  • Thread starter Thread starter jacobaer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SolaScriptura said:
Hi Randy,

Quick partial response.

No, I didn’t ask you this. Your question was based on the fact that the word of God is/was contained in more than the Scriptures. I agreed with that point, but I’m asking if your Church has any other Word of God, besides what we have in Scripture Does it?

Sigh. It is ironic you speak of Protestants alternative interpretations in the same breadth when you claim the Catholic Church teaches the material sufficiency of the Bible. This is ironic because the Catholic Church has alternative interpretations on this very point. Catholics disagree over where the Scriptures are materially sufficient or not. However, we have all your novice wannabe Catholic apologists making all kinds of dogmatic statements based on your “private interpretation”. The irony is amazing.

The rest of your post is typical of what comes across on this board. It is based on caricatures and strawmen that I have long denied or refuted. It is just rhetoric and preaching to rally the troops. It was OK initially, but now since I have corrected this misconceptions I expected they would stop, but alas they continue on. So for every Catholic reading, if I ignore your posts, it is not because it is a devastating critique, but just the opposite. It is something that doesn’t deserve an answer, because I have already answered it or it is based on caricatures and strawmen. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Joshu_b has already begun the process of correcting your errors in the post above. But with the voice of Patrick Madrid ringing in my ears, let me just say that all Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals is found either explicitly or implicitly in scripture.

Were you unaware of this or just ignoring it because it is not as much fun to argue against a position that you know to be true?

If you find that Catholics have some variations in their understandings then I only ask you to consider that despite their differences on some issues, they all still tend to orbit VERY closely about the Son in comparison to the whole of Protestantism which is truly cut adrift.

Should we ignore you simply because most of what you post is just “typical of what comes across on this board” from every Protestant-come-lately who has just read Lorraine Boettner or James White and feels he has a thing or two to teach us Papists?

If all I did was “rally the troops”, then I am damn proud to have done so! If I spoke a word or two that resonated with you, I’ll probably never know.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Joshu_b has already begun the process of correcting your errors in the post above. But with the voice of Patrick Madrid ringing in my ears, let me just say that all Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals is found either explicitly or implicitly in scripture.

.
Click to expand...
Madrid vs White revisited in cut n paste fashion?
I’m staying out of this.
 
So, Sola Scriptura, you do accept that God’s Word also came down orally, but the only reliable and infallible source is the Scriptures.

Irenaeus, whom we have discussed, believed that this oral tradition was preserved through apostolic succession. The only Churches that can claim apostolic succession are the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, both of which deny Sola Scriptura. The point is that, unlike any Protestant church, the Catholic Church can at least claim institutional continuity with the Church founded by Jesus. Granted, this does not automatically make it the true church, but it does give it serious weight.

The Church Jesus founded was not merely a fellowship of believers, but an organized body with a teaching authority that made binding decisions on doctrine and discipline (Ephesians 4, Acts 15). The Pope and the bishops are their successors and we can trace our line of Popes back to the apostolic age, as Irenaeus does in his Against Heresies. The teaching authority of this Church is a reliable guardian of Scripture and transmitter of oral Tradition because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18-19) , that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth, and that it as the “pillar and foundation of truth.” If the Church en masse fell into heresy and doctrinal error, then Christ did not keep His promise because heresy (the work of Satan) has prevailed.

God Bless,
Michael
 
My original intention is starting this thread was to point out the error in SolaScriptura’s argument.

The error is this: the Sola Scripturist must go outside the bounds of Scripture in order to make any kind of case that Scripture Alone is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice. It’s odd, isn’t it? They can’t make the case for Scripture Alone by sticking to Scripture alone.

That is all.

I am starting a new thread titled The Hypostatic Union and Sola Scriptura in which I will ask those on the Forum who hold to SS to please make the case for the Union using Scripture alone.

Thanks to all who contributed here,
Jacobaer
 
jacobaer said:
My original intention is starting this thread was to point out the error in SolaScriptura’s argument.

The error is this: the Sola Scripturist must go outside the bounds of Scripture in order to make any kind of case that Scripture Alone is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice. It’s odd, isn’t it? They can’t make the case for Scripture Alone by sticking to Scripture alone.

That is all.
Click to expand...
And this supposedly error is based off of a misunderstanding, because for the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 time, sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the "sole authority for Christian faith and practice. :rolleyes:
 
SolaScriptura said:
And this supposedly error is based off of a misunderstanding, because for the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 time, sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the "sole authority for Christian faith and practice. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS
  1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
  2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
  3. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.
  4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
  5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
 
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
  1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
  2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
  3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
  4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
  5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
  6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
  1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
  2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
  3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
  4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
  5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
  6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent reiteration of James White’s opening remarks from the transcript of the Madrid v White debate. Nicely done.

Paragraph 5 looks new, but all the rest was there. Is this a recent addition or did James simply omit this in the debate?
 
Randy_Carson said:
This is an excellent reiteration of James White’s opening remarks from the transcript of the Madrid v White debate. Nicely done.

Paragraph 5 looks new, but all the rest was there. Is this a recent addition or did James simply omit this in the debate?
Click to expand...
I’ll post the Link I believe it was a late addition.
fccphx.homestead.com/SolaScriptura.html

I’ve posted this a number of times here…
People aren’t to keen in these parts to understanding Us, kinda like my pals at carm and trying to understand you guys.🙂
 
myfavoritmartin said:
What I am saying is depending on which angle you viewed the debate from determined how you felt about the outcome.
Click to expand...
Incidently Randy by your posting I can tell your strongly influenced by the debate, nay you’ve studied it in depth…
Am I correct?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Incidently Randy by your posting I can tell your strongly influenced by the debate, nay you’ve studied it in depth…
Am I correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have listened to the CD many times and read the transcript. “Studied” would be perhaps too strong a word…
 
  1. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
Click to expand...
Myfavoritemartin, what are those things necessary for salvation that Scripture reveals? What do you mean by this?

God Bless,
Michael
 
mikeledes said:
Myfavoritemartin, what are those things necessary for salvation that Scripture reveals? What do you mean by this?

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
I keep telling myself not to get into this debate, so I won’t but since you (mike asked) I’ll do my best to answer. These are Dr. James Whites words( the ones I posted above the what is and what is not SS
Lets look…
2 Timothy 3:14-17

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;** (meaning God)**

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which** are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus**.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Mike from my standpoint its pretty clear, though I realize it doesnt jive with the Catholic interpretation of James 2:24 and RCC doctrine… Its pretty straight forward to us.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which** are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus**.
Click to expand...
Which Scriptures? In Timothy’s time the Old Testament was the only Scriptures available (the NT didn’t exist)
myfavoritmartin said:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Click to expand...
Catholics would have no disagreement with that. However, it doesn’t say all Scripture is sufficient.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I keep telling myself not to get into this debate, so I won’t but since you (mike asked) I’ll do my best to answer. These are Dr. James Whites words( the ones I posted above the what is and what is not SS
Lets look…
2 Timothy 3:14-17

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;** (meaning God)**

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which** are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus**.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Mike from my standpoint its pretty clear, though I realize it doesnt jive with the Catholic interpretation of James 2:24 and RCC doctrine… Its pretty straight forward to us.
Click to expand...
Scripture reveals what is necessary for salvation and what is necessary for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. So it took several millenia and 73/66 books (depending on which canon you adhere to) to simply state that salvation is through faith in Christ?

Divine Revelation does not necessarily limit itself to those things directly pertaining to our own personal salvation. It also reveals how God has directly intervened in the lives of His saints. Elijah’s and Enoch’s assumption had no direct impact on our salvation. If it had not occurred, I don’t think it would have changed the fact that Jesus had to die for our sins. But it was an act of God, true, and hence worthy to be included in Divine Revelation.

Scripture certainly provides the essentials necessary for being justified and ultimately saved. But these essentials are not the whole of Divine Revelation:

Hebrews 5:12 & 6:1

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

**1Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. **

Salvation through faith in Christ is just one elementary teaching revealed in Scripture. But, as Paul states in the above passages, there is more to Divine Revelation than this.

So yes, Scripture can give us the wisdom that leads us to salvation. But it does not necessarily encompass all of Divine Revelation, at least in explicit form. As Catholics, we believe Divine Revelation came down to us in two forms: Scripture and Tradition. Tradition essentailly makes expilicit what is implicitly found in Scripture. For example, the Trinity came down to us in clearer from through Tradition. The sinfulness of masturbation and artificial contraception came down to us in clearer from through Tradition.

Scripture is profitable because , as a God breathed text, it is useful as a reference point for teaching doctrine. But profitable does not mean it is a sufficient source for Divine Revelation. Nor does it mean that God limited Divine Revelation exclusively to written form. A textbook, for example, is extremely profitable in any History Class because, as a standard written source that gives the basics of history, it is an excellent point of reference for teaching and studying. However, it is not the only source for teaching and learning history.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top