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

[clmowry]

clm>>I guess I missed something. Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper?

Which denominations did these splits produce?

So your claim is that all Catholics agree on all of the above?

Yes everyone who is Catholic agrees on these items by definition.

Some, however, who claim memebership in the Catholic Church however do not agree on these or many things that are much more problematic than the list given above.

So I take it, your would claim that if anyone proclaiming membership in the Catholic Church professess a belief other than that held as true by the Magestarium of the Catholic Church then the result is a “split” in the Church and therefore the Church is no longer “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic”?

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

hoosierdaddy:

Note the key word “write”. “I WRITE so that you may know…”. We learn how we are to act in the house of God by reading what Scripture tells us about how to act in the house of God. The Church may be the pillar of the truth but what is the truth? The Scriptures. The Church is supposed to hold to the Scriptures; in this way it is the pillar of truth.

IMHO this is perhaps one of the best examples of reading INTO a passage what you already believe to be true; eisegesis.

Why do I say this? Because Paul says essentially that he is only writing because he might be delayed. It sounds as if this werent the case then he wouldn’t have written at all and that he would have simply covered all the essentials by simply talking to Timothy.

Lets look at the full context:
1Tim3:14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly. 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

Paul explains quite clearly that he is not writing for any other reason than to ensure that Timothy get the information IN A TIMELY MANNER. That’s the only reason he wrote it down. But look at what you have done to the verses! You have seized upon the word “write” and crammed your preconcieved notion that the “written word” somehow supercedes God’s ability to preserve His truth above all other means. It simply is not a concept that is contained in these verses, but you injected them (eisegesis) to fit what you wanted them to say.

 

[Servant1]

Originally Posted by Servant1 View Post
In actuality the Bible gives to the Church an degree of authority it never “claims for itself.” See 1 Tim 3:15: “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Note the key word “write”. “I WRITE so that you may know…”. We learn how we are to act in the house of God by reading what Scripture tells us about how to act in the house of God. The Church may be the pillar of the truth but what is the truth? The Scriptures. The Church is supposed to hold to the Scriptures; in this way it is the pillar of truth.

YOU say the key word is “I write…” YOU say it is… That doesn’t make it so. The information Paul wished to impart in this sentence is that the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth. He could have easily said, had he meant to say it, that the Bible was. He didn’t say that. What he didn’t say is as important as what he did say.

And - the oft quoted verse from elswhere in Pauls writing to Timothy - 2 Tim 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” is often turned around in its meaning by Sola Scripturists.

Note carefully the language, even in English…

It says ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God… That speaks about the inspiration of scripture… it DOES NOT say - and this is crucial - it DOES NOT say that scripture is ALL that is inspired by God! There is a vital difference and there is no way the English or the Greek can be reconstructed to mean that.

You seem to be playing word games. It says ALL Scripture. Therefore ALL Scripture is inspired by God. Anything that is not Scripture is not inspired by God. Apart from Scripture you absolutely cannot know what to believe and what to reject. I could say I was Jesus Christ but Scripture proves me wrong.

No, I do not “seem” to be playing word games… It is not playing word games to want to use the words and syntax precisely. It is rightly dividing. It is simple linguistic fact that saying “all x is y is NOT the same as saying all y is x.” It’s that simple and it’s not games, it’s linguistic precision. Saying “All cherries are red” is NOT the same as saying “All things that are red are cherries.” It just doesn’t wash. And you can’t ignore it by calling it word games. You can ignore it if you choose to, but NOT because it is a mere word game.

Yes, Paul told Timothy that God inspired the scripture. But he ALSO told Timothy that the CHURCH was the pillar and grond of truth. Paul clearly places significant authority in the CHURCH.

See above. The Church is subject to the Word of God.>>> Who says? You? The Reformers? Martin Luther? Where does THE BIBLE say the Church is subject to IT? The Church existed when there WAS no Bible. As someone else asked several posts ago, “Would you be a Christian if there were no Bible?” If you can’t be a Christian without the Bible, then 400 years of them were sorely deceived. The Church collectively decided what constituted the Bible. That does not sound like the Church is subject to the Bible to me. Now, if your argument about the Church being subject to the Word of God means the Logos of John’s Gospel - the Christ - then yes. But when most Sola Scripturists use the phrase “Word of God” they merely mean the Bible. As if that were all there is to the Word of God.

It is not above it. Your belief was a major reason that the Reformation was needed; the Church was steeped in traditions and superstitions and the Reformers wanted to get it back to the Word of God. Had it held to the Word of God and been subject to the Word of God, there would have been no reason for the Reformation.

One simply cannot use what Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16-17 to means that scripture is all that there is that is God-inspired. And 1 Tim 3:15 certainly says the Church is, else how could it be the pillar and ground of truth?

So I can’t believe the Bible is all that is inspired (though it explicitly says this) but I have to believe that the Church is because…you say so? Something’s wrong here. How else could the Church be the pillar of truth? By first, accepting that Scripture is truth and second, by being subject to it. They can’t be the pillar of truth if they refuse the sole source of truth.

You can believe whatever you bloody please to believe. Anything. But that will NOT make what Paul said to Timothy be able to be twisted into saying the Bible is ALL that is inspired by God. It never said that - certainly not explicitly. And you don’t have to believe the Church is inspired because I said so. PAUL said so. As have innumerable since then. And Jesus promised the Church WOULD be inspired, guarded, and protected by the Holy Spirit. So Jesus messed that one up?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I’ll try to answer these posts in more depth tonight but I want to leave with this thought. I repeat, the key word is ‘WRITE’.

Also, I did not do eisegesis. But isn’t that what Catholics do with their doctrine of purgatory? They read that into the passage of 1 Corinthians. If I’m guilty of it, I guess you guys are too.

Have a good day (and don’t read into that, I mean what I say).

 

[Servant1]

I’ll try to answer these posts in more depth tonight but I want to leave with this thought. I repeat, the key word is ‘WRITE’.

Also, I did not do eisegesis. But isn’t that what Catholics do with their doctrine of purgatory? They read that into the passage of 1 Corinthians. If I’m guilty of it, I guess you guys are too.

Have a good day (and don’t read into that, I mean what I say).

I FULLY accept that you mean what you say above:thumbsup:

The Greek “grapho” meaning “I write” is the subject and verb of the sentence. The point of the sentence is WHAT he writes, not that he writes. Particularly in that he says “I write SO THAT or IN ORDER THAT…”

I didn’t mention eisegesis or eisogesis… nor purgatory. Purgatory is a straw man in this discussion so I won’t be dealing with it.

Mazel tov.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

You can put your trust in a Magisterium….I will put mine in the Lord Jesus Christ and the written Word He left us so that we would not be deceived by man

Hosierdadday: you found the writings of our Lord?? Where are they? Jesus left behind a manuscript??? He said He did this so “we would not be deceived by man?”

I guess, according to your judgment, all of us Catholics are not “true Christians anyway.” We don’t go for ‘cherry picking’ phrases out of context, attributing all sorts of goofy ideas to single words like “WRITE.”

Answer me for once: where is this written Word Jesus left us “so we would not be deceived by man?”

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I FULLY accept that you mean what you say above:thumbsup:

The Greek “grapho” meaning “I write” is the subject and verb of the sentence. The point of the sentence is WHAT he writes, not that he writes. Particularly in that he says “I write SO THAT or IN ORDER THAT…”

I didn’t mention eisegesis or eisogesis… nor purgatory. Purgatory is a straw man in this discussion so I won’t be dealing with it.

Mazel tov.

Fair enough. Purgatory is not a strawman though. It was an example…a perfect one at that. I wasn’t looking to discuss it.

 

[mikeledes]

SolaScriptura Your initial point was that “The Bible was given to a Church that already possessed the correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God.” in contrast to sola Scriptura not having this and that being its problem. Well, I asked you some question above that your didn’t answer. Did the Jews have this correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God? If not, why didn’t they need it? If they did, how did they get it so wrong?

Please specify where the Jews of Jesus’s day went wrong? Were there any Jews that held the true interpretation of Scripture? A faithful remnant?

No one is talking about poll numbers, but real disagreements by conservative Catholics. BTW, when was the first Catechism written? How does this solve the problem for the 2nd and 3rd century? What about all the different points of doctrine that the Catechism doesn’t speak about?

If these conservative Catholics disagree in a point already formally defined Magsiterium, then they are the ones that have the problem. The teaching stands whether they agree with it or not. Can you be more specific regarding the 2nd and 3rd centuries? There were plenty of heretics (i.e. Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanists, Modalists) all of which held to beliefs I think we both agree were not orthodox Christian.

C’mon Michael, I’m sure you know better than that. There are very few things the Magisterium has ruled on in the grand scheme of things. The differences amongst Catholics in reference to interpretations are numerous, they even disagree on the method of interpretations.

If it is part of the ordinary and constant teaching of the Magisterium, it is binding on all believers. Please provide examples of these disagrements?

Of course if by Magisterium you mean the modern day Catholic meaning then you would be wrong. However, you are right Protestants benefit from the work of the early church, because they are our fathers also and I’m ( we ) are not ashamed to say so. The distinction here is the same as the distinction for authority in the church. We respect them, we just don’t consider them as infallible and neither do you. Your church picks and chooses what it believes from Tradition and the early fathers. If she didn’t you wouldn’t embrace most if not all the Marian dogmas, Papal Infallibility and host of other doctrines.

All of these ECFs believed in apostolic succession, starting with Clement and this is something that Protestantism grievosuly lacks. The Catholic Church can trace its popes back to the apostolic age, making it at least structurally the same church Jesus founded. That gives it far more weight than any Protetant Church and can legitimately claim the Church Fathers as part of its heritage.

That is a cop out. You have been preaching to me about needing Apostolic Tradition to interpret the Scriptures correctly and so I ask you for it and you send me to tracts and doctrines on a website? I want the Apostolic Tradition sense that is why you said was needed

.

I did not have the time to give you an exhaustive list of historical evidence. But if you want one example of a teaching that came down primarily through Tradition, try apostolic succession. You’ll find it in the letter of Clement and Irenaeus. Also, prayers for the dead. Read Tertullian, for example.

OK, show me where the magisterium has solved the debate over predestination or the material sufficiency vs material insufficiency of Scripture

.

Did you read the canons of the Council of Orange and the decrees of predestination in the Council of Trent? Also read the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. Regarding the Scripture, I think the Catechism and general teaching of the Catholic Church is clear. Its Scripture and Tradition, not Sola Scriptura.

At least you gave an argument, but it wasn’t convincing in the least. I affirm all those passages and binding authority of the council that met and ruled. Remember, the God-inspired Apostles came to that conclusion. However, this doesn’t come close to answering the question I asked. The above is Scripture and inspired Apostles. What is the evidence for you concept of Tradition and Magisteruim.

Please note that the council included the elders, and not just the apostles. Also note that God inspired Paul turned to the teaching authority of the Church to settle the matter, and not just to his own personal spiritual experience. He certainly did not pull a Martin Luther.

My word count for a single post is running out so I will stop, before answer the last of your post in reference to my dependence on the infallible magisterium. Besides begging the question on magisterium, I don’t consider it infallible. Your church didn’t until after the Reformation and people got along fine, so why do you think it has to be infallible defined now.

I beg to differ with that analysis. There is evidence of belief in infallibility before the Reformation. I have to go.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hosierdadday: you found the writings of our Lord?? Where are they? Jesus left behind a manuscript??? He said He did this so “we would not be deceived by man?”

**Yes I did, and it’s called the Holy Bible. I suggest you read it instead of trying to goad me into an argument which you would most surely lose. **

I guess, according to your judgment, all of us Catholics are not “true Christians anyway.” We don’t go for ‘cherry picking’ phrases out of context, attributing all sorts of goofy ideas to single words like “WRITE.”

LOL You think Mary is equal to God and charge ME with having all sorts of goofy ideas? No, your charge against me was wrong. And I’m rather tired of your very tired phrase “cherry picking”. It is YOU guys who cherry pick verses. Yes you do cherry pick verses out of context. Example…the purgatory issue. It just is not in 1 Corinthians. You can wish that it would be…but it isn’t.

Answer me for once: where is this written Word Jesus left us “so we would not be deceived by man?”

My guess is it’s on your book shelf collecting dust while you sit at your keyboard trying to draw me into a fight because you are bored with Scripture Alone? Am I close? What is that book collecting dust? The Holy Bible. Read it!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I disagree. It is an implicit statement that Scripture is the highest authority, even above traditions

. To tell them to search the Scriptures gives one good reason to believe that the Scriptures are the highest authority.
quote]

Hoosier: This is a REAL whopper! Now, from someone who claims to KNOW what each inspired author (including God Himself) means by each word, you say "It is an implicit statement that Scripture is the highest authority, even above traditions."

Make up your mind! You can’t have it both ways!

Jesus argued with the Sadducees (the ones who ONLY accept the Pentatuech as ‘holy scripture’ for Jews) and with the Pharisees (who followed the Septuagint: the Catholic OT for the Bible) on ‘traditions’ or customs of the Jewish people. The early Church was mostly made up of Christian Jews: thus, St Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews talking AND writing about the New Covenant in Jesus as Messiah.

Jesus and His disciples celebrated Hannukah, yet it is NOWHERE to be found in the Protestant OT. What was Jesus thinking! It must not be a valid tradition, then.

You can find it in the Septuagint in one of the Maccabees. Hhmmm, Jesus alludes to those nasty Catholic deuteronicals (where Purgatory, the idea that souls after death might be in some kind of purifying process is mentioned) that Protestants tsk-tsk.

You don’t read anything in context. You do indeed practise eisegesis. With an impressive devil-may-care flair.

 

[RNRobert]

** Read your Bible…it will come to you. **

I read my Bible. It’s why I became Catholic.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Which of Paul’s letters is Peter referring to?

I don’t know, I suppose a quick look at the historical record would give us some indication…
*. What PAUL knew as scripture was the Septuagint. But that’s another point…" *

Reformed1: Your assertion, which is highlighted, is in all ways incorrect.

ALL of the Gospels were written from a quarter of a century to half a century AFTER St Paul’s letters. And this is not from some misunderstanding of what the Magisterium teaches, but from Christian and non-Christian exegetes and scholars.

Please respond with a source for this assertion. I can’t find any, in fact, I noticed how St Luke’s version of St Paul’s conversion story varies from St Paul’s own references to it.

Dang! Why don’t those writers get it right! Don’t they know that thousands of personal interpretations (all hail Sola Scriptura) are dependent upon what is WRITTEN???

 

[hoosierdaddy]

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I read my Bible. It’s why I became Catholic.

I read my Bible too. It’s why the chances of me becoming a Catholic are slim to none. You can always pray though.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Which of Paul’s letters is Peter referring to?

I don’t know, I suppose a quick look at the historical record would give us some indication.
…The other poster seems to think that Paul was somehow limiting scripture to only the OT which is not the case at all

Sorry, Reformed1, I couldn’t let this whopper go by without a comment.

Whenever St Paul refers to scripture in his letters, it IS the Septuagint, like he quotes at 2 Cor 12:21 (or OT of the Catholic bible). The other scrolls, or codices, were not gathered into one volume (what we know as the Bible) nor was there any reason to do so since witnesses to Jesus’ teaching and death and resurrection were preaching the revelation to all nations.

Any argument by St Paul to convince other Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Messiah had to, by necessity and by fact, be limited to the OT.

One more time, Reformed1, St Paul taught non-Jews from the Jewish scripture (the ONLY ‘bible’ in existence at the time!).

You’re making that great, PERSONAL, Protestant leap of ‘implicit in scripture.’

If you think the Bible as you hold it (courtesy of the Magisterium of the Church) is what is being discussed and written about in ANY reference in the OT to ‘scripture’ you are naively and fatally mistaken.

Don’t Presbytarians use the Catholic lectionary (from Vatican II) for their liturgy???

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Reformed1…just ignore the guy. He absolutely does not get such a simple truth. Funny how all Protestants get it but all Catholics don’t. This is fruitless. Time to obey Scripture and cease from fruitless debates.

 

[joshua_b]

Semantics. When the dissention is among Catholics it’s ok but when it’s among Protestants it’s not. Ok. You will have to be more convincing.

Were not talking about “dissention”, were talking about Doctrine. Any Catholic church, anywhere in the world will teach the exact same doctrine, no exceptions. It is not possible to “dissent” and remain Catholic in regard to doctrine.

Scripture says we see through a glass darkly. Please be accurate. Most Protestants agree on the main important things. They form their own denominations (most of them anyways) based on personalities, worship styles, and other such secondary issues. At least we stick to the Bible; Catholics have an out with everything. They can just say it’s Tradition even when it contradicts Scripture.

First of all, what “main important things” do you (mostly) agree on, and to what extent are you allowed to “agree” before you no longer agree ? (and you were telling ME about semantics???). Furthermore, there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that contradicts Scripture. Some doctrine may not be explicitly stated, and other doctrine may contradict YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture, but the holy grail of Protestant apologetics, to prove that Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture, is something that has never been done to my satisfaction. If you think you can do this so well, I personally challenge you to start a thread on the topic…I will see you there.

** I disagree. Catholics all over the place disagree about many things. They even say that they aren’t required to believe that Mary never died, etc. I don’t believe the Church has any way to deal with contrary beliefs. If they did they would not sit on the fence over the Fatima issue, nor over the issue of whether Mary ever died or not.

I think there are plenty of Protestant denominations with as much if not more structural unity than the RCC. As for consistency in doctrinal teachings, I already commented on that. I’ve been saying the same thing for two weeks though and I’m beginning to believe that some of you don’t listen.**
If that is what you have to say about this, then your definition of “doctrine” is woefully ignorant of the Catholic position. Doctrine refers to official Church Teaching, it never can and never has changed. There is no official church teaching on whether or not Mary died, therefore those who say they aren’t required to believe it are correct. The Church only concerns itself with beliefs contrary to the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, but that is woefully off topic, and I strongly suggest you do alot more studying on what exactly Catholic doctrine IS before you comment on it.

**I think us Protestants are basically…tired of answering this question when it is apparent you don’t want to listen. Read your Bible…it will come to you. **

I have yet to actually see this question answered, which is why I keep asking it. I’ve asked it three times now, and have never received an answer, so if it is so easy to answer, then answer it one more time and I will ask it no more, but until then the challenge stands.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You may have to wait for someone else to though. It seems that the resident Protestants are tired of answering it. I hope you find what you’re looking for.

 

[jacobaer]

hoosierdaddy,

The concept of purgatory is ROOTED in the New Testament Scriptures. I would be glad to show you. It is based on more than just 1 Corinthians 3.

Jacobaer

 

[jacobaer]

Hi hoosierdaddy,

I said: “Is it necessary for my salvation that I believe that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature?”
*You replied: “*I would say yes, according to John 1 and John 3:16. Sorry you had to wait.”

ME: Where in these Scripture passages do you see that:

A) Jesus is ONE divine person instead of two persons. In other words, how do you know that Jesus is one single divine person, instead of two persons in one body?

B) Jesus has two natures, divine and human. In other words, how do you know that Jesus has two natures instead of one nature?

Also, please show me where in Scripture that it says I must believe that Jesus is a single divine person with two natures in order to be saved. Why can’t I believe that Jesus is a single divine person with ONE nature, a combination of a divine and human nature?

Use Scripture only, please.

In answer to this same question, SolaScriptura has replied: “No, but it is necessary that you do not deny it. All the people that are saved in the Scriptures when were they asked if they believed that doctrine? Do you believe all the uneducated people in theological disputes are not saved until they confess belief in the above?”

ME: Oh, my! Do I believe hoosierdaddy or SolaScriptura? Somebody please help me!!!

Peace,
Jacobaer