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

[SolaScriptura]

Everyone here understands the dodge you just employed. Well, Hoosier doesn’t, but all the Catholics do.

You can’t answer the question so you attempt to shift the debate.

I’ve answered enough questions on this board that you should know this is not one I cannot answer. Obviously you think too highly of yourself if you think that is the case.

As a Catholic, I rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. I am not bound by Scripture Alone for my understanding. (You know, of course, that Catholics acknowledge the material sufficiency of scripture - so don’t give us any straw men here.)

Of course you are not, but are you saying that there is evidence for the bodily assumption of Mary in Scripture and early tradition? Please give me some of it. Furthermore, it is not a De Fide teaching of Catholicism that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. There are conservative Catholics that would disagree with you, but that is the ironic thing about you amateur catholic apologists. You are constantly using your private interpretation to make dogmatic assertions about what Catholicism teaches or believe and often you are wrong. For example here is a quote from Robert Sungenis on material sufficiency:

No, “constitutive tradition” would not rule out “material sufficiency,” since “material sufficiency” has never been defined in the Catholic Church in order to be ruled out. “Material sufficiency” is a debated theological concept, and so is “constitutive tradition.” The Church has made no motions to defining these issue simply because she has not seen the need to do so.

So it is only your private interpretation that material sufficiency is true.

Therefore, I can give you scriptures that implicitly support this doctrine along with the historical understanding of those verses and this doctrine found in the writings of the ECF’s. You reject this, of course, and I understand that. Ultimately, we won’t get very far in our discussion. But this is off topic.

Of course it is the topic of the discussion because it validates if your answer is true or not. Could you please provide me with the verses and the ECF’s understanding of them?

You, however, do accept the doctrine of sola scriptura and there is absolutely NO WAY you will accept any man-made traditions in your faith position. Therefore, you will want to demonstrate to all of the Catholics here in this forum exactly why we are wrong to deny this sacred cow, er, doctrine.

I have done so on a number of occasion. And each time I do so I get one of a couple of responses. 1) Straw men arguments that you refuse to let go of. 2) Bait and switch. In the middle of talking about sola Scriptura you jump to the canon. 3) Sticking your fingers in your ears and preach Catholic doctrine. Anyone who follows the discussions closely will see that is the modus operandi.

So, please, with all of us Catholics who are headed to hell for our false beliefs and for the sake of a lot of your fellow Protestants who look up to you, please tell us all:

Yes or no… Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole [infallible] rule of faith for the Church today? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

No, the Scriptures do not assert it, which is not a requirement of sola Scriptura(i.e. First straw man ). However, the principle is true by good and necessary consequence. Here is why. 1) The Scriptures are the Word of God, therefore there can be no higher source than God himself. At best there can be an equal source 2) Catholics claim they have other tradition from God that is equal to Scripture, therefore I ask them to document this assertion. They have been unwilling to do it either from Scripture or Tradition. 3) So until you can document another infallible source outside of Scripture then it logically follows that the Scriptures are the only infallible source.

So now I ask you to document with evidence from the Scriptures and the ECFs that they believed there was another infallible source besides Scripture. Waiting …

 

[joshua_b]

I’ve answered enough questions on this board that you should know this is not one I cannot answer. Obviously you think too highly of yourself if you think that is the case.

Of course you are not, but are you saying that there is evidence for the bodily assumption of Mary in Scripture and early tradition? Please give me some of it. Furthermore, it is not a De Fide teaching of Catholicism that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. There are conservative Catholics that would disagree with you, but that is the ironic thing about you amateur catholic apologists. You are constantly using your private interpretation to make dogmatic assertions about what Catholicism teaches or believe and often you are wrong. For example here is a quote from Robert Sungenis on material sufficiency:

No, “constitutive tradition” would not rule out “material sufficiency,” since “material sufficiency” has never been defined in the Catholic Church in order to be ruled out. “Material sufficiency” is a debated theological concept, and so is “constitutive tradition.” The Church has made no motions to defining these issue simply because she has not seen the need to do so.

So it is only your private interpretation that material sufficiency is true.

Of course it is the topic of the discussion because it validates if your answer is true or not. Could you please provide me with the verses and the ECF’s understanding of them?

I have done so on a number of occasion. And each time I do so I get one of a couple of responses. 1) Straw men arguments that you refuse to let go of. 2) Bait and switch. In the middle of talking about sola Scriptura you jump to the canon. 3) Sticking your fingers in your ears and preach Catholic doctrine. Anyone who follows the discussions closely will see that is the modus operandi.

No, the Scriptures do not assert it, which is not a requirement of sola Scriptura(i.e. First straw man ). However, the principle is true by good and necessary consequence. Here is why. 1) The Scriptures are the Word of God, therefore there can be no higher source than God himself. At best there can be an equal source 2) Catholics claim they have other tradition from God that is equal to Scripture, therefore I ask them to document this assertion. They have been unwilling to do it either from Scripture or Tradition. 3) So until you can document another infallible source outside of Scripture then it logically follows that the Scriptures are the only infallible source.

So now I ask you to document with evidence from the Scriptures and the ECFs that they believed there was another infallible source besides Scripture. Waiting …

Lets start with this one…“The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of all truth”

Now its your turn. Provide me with any verse of Scripture that tells us that Scripture is God’s fianl and full revelation. I’m not interested in what interpretation you have on Timothy, or what verse you have in mind to suggest that the Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of all truth, I want nothing less, yet nothing more than for you to simply qualify for us all Scripturally that Scripture is God’s final and full revelation. I searched this thread repeatedly for the answer that hoosierdaddy is claiming has already been posted and I have not seen it. Tag…youre it

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luther tried to take out James, Catholics added seven books. What’s the diff?

I don’t know…I can’t be sure of much of anything when I read Catholic sources. I have a book called “This is the Faith” and there are things in there that are “necessary” for salvation that I don’t see in the Bible.

The Assumption of Mary is irrelevant as even all you Catholics are not in agreement on that. Plus, the Bible doesn’t mention it (which Revelation could have…but didn’t). I am not required to believe in the Assumption of Mary and God is not one bit displeased with me for not believing it. As for needing an infallible Church to find “this is my body”, etc. that couldn’t be further from the truth. However, you show by your own example the danger of not sticking to the inerrant Word of God alone; as Scripture would never lead you to believe in the Assumption of Mary.

How come you keep using that “tossed to and fro” verse against Protestants. If we were so tossed to and fro would we be standing on rock solid truth as we are and not being easily deceived. You have “Traditions” of fallible men, we have the inerrant Word of God which makes us COMPLETE. We are hardly being tossed to and fro. I’ve believed the same gospel for 12 years now. Praise God!

(Edited by Moderator) God bless.

Three points to keep this simple:

1. The canon of scripture was set by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Luther took books out of the OT and tried to do the same with the NT. He also tried to add the word “alone” to make the phrase “faith alone” appear prominently. Protestantism is descended from this loosey-goosey approach to the word of God. We didn’t “add”, you “subtracted”. Check your history books.
2. Protestantism as a whole is characterized by different understandings of baptism, the sacramental nature of marriage, the ministerial NT priesthood, etc. And that’s just the differences between denominations…the individual denominations themselves have changed their stances on doctrines over time and no longer accept what many of the original reformers themselves taught. That’s what “tossed to and fro” means.
3. Marian doctrines are based upon both scripture and tradition as interpreted by an infallible Church which I have previously described as NECESSARY for the Christian. You either skipped my multi-post explanation or did not understand it. You never commented on it, so I guess you just blew right through it because it looked to intimidating, and you prefer one-liners and quick jabs as opposed to in-depth thought.

As for your 12 years of consistent belief, well, it’s just a drop in the bucket compared with 2,000 years. Keep reading.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay, start a thread and let me show why it is weak. Remember the thread is only on the canon, not sola Scriptura. Think you can manage to distinguish between the two? As far as you other little post you keep bumping, because you think it is so unanswerable I will reply to it when I get a chance.

Huh? I think you have become confused.

You said that our argument against sola scriptura was weak when you wrote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*This argument about the canon is so old and weak I don’t know why Catholics keep throwing it out. *

What is there for me to show you in another thread? You’ve asked me to demonstrate that my own arguement is weak???

No, the argument against sola scriptura using the canon of scripture is devastating.

So I can either ask you to demonstrate why you believe in the canon of the Bible from the Bible Alone, or I can ask you to demonstrate for us where the Bible actually teaches sola scriptura.

You can’t do either. There is no inspired “table of contents” in the Bible, nor is there a verse that tells me that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian.

And please, let’s not replay the 2 Tim 3:16-17 thing again. It’s been explained over and over and over again that it does NOT say what the Protestant desperately wants it to say - no more than talking about “dead faith” explains away James 2:24 in a desperate bid to save sola fide. C’mon, surely you must have something more…we Catholics are eager to hear your arguments.

And don’t think that we have forgotten that you haven’t answered my question:

Yes or no… Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole [infallible] rule of faith for the Church today? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Three points to keep this simple:

1. The canon of scripture was set by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Luther took books out of the OT and tried to do the same with the NT. He also tried to add the word “alone” to make the phrase “faith alone” appear prominently. Protestantism is descended from this loosey-goosey approach to the word of God. We didn’t “add”, you “subtracted”. Check your history books.

Why did it take you guys 400 some odd years to “decide” which books were in the Bible? Christians knew this from the beginning. Could you please tell me how you didn’t “add” when there was NO new Scriptural revelation from God between the book of Malachi and the arrival of Christ? Was not the Apocrypha written within that time of no revelation from God? Conclusion: You added.

1. Protestantism as a whole is characterized by different understandings of baptism, the sacramental nature of marriage, the ministerial NT priesthood, etc. And that’s just the differences between denominations…the individual denominations themselves have changed their stances on doctrines over time and no longer accept what many of the original reformers themselves taught. That’s what “tossed to and fro” means.

Nope. Because your Church has changed through time as well. If it hadn’t it would not have taken over 400 years to “decide” what books were Scripture. We may learn more and more from Scripture as we go on but the point is, we USE Scripture! You cannot say the same.

1. Marian doctrines are based upon both scripture and tradition as interpreted by an infallible Church which I have previously described as NECESSARY for the Christian. You either skipped my multi-post explanation or did not understand it. You never commented on it, so I guess you just blew right through it because it looked to intimidating, and you prefer one-liners and quick jabs as opposed to in-depth thought.

**Oh they are eh? When God said He was the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, Mary was included in the equation? She cannot be the Mother of God unless she were God. Jesus existed from eternity past, before Mary was ever born. God was Mary’s SAVIOUR, therefore Mary cannot be the Mother of God. Call me a heretic all you want now, I will not be moved, swayed, or tossed to and fro.

I’m getting rather sick of your personal insults. At least I stick to the truth. You can do nothing but make personal insults. I read what you wrote. I am not intimidated. Has it ever occurred to you that I just don’t care to comment on everything you say and I just don’t agree with you? Someone who thinks all those Mary teachings are Scriptural telling ME I am incapable of in-depth thought? LOL that is good. **

As for your 12 years of consistent belief, well, it’s just a drop in the bucket compared with 2,000 years. Keep reading.

You’d have a point if you made sense. I don’t see the Roman Catholic Church in Scripture. I do see “the Church” of which I am a full member of. Deal with it. I will keep reading thank you. Scripture.

 

[RNRobert]

I’ve been following this thread for sometime, and the Protestant position seems to be this (not explicitly, but implicitly:

1. 
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the sacred writers wrote Holy Scripture.
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the Church leaders compiled Holy Scripture.
   *]But the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error regarding the teaching Holy Scripture.
   Now before I get flamed for this, I want ask something: If the Catholic Church is wrong, to where is the Christian to go to to find the Scriptures expounded without error?
   For the Love of Christ, please do not reply with some flippant answer like “It’s a strawman argument.” I am being serious, deadly serious. There is nothing in this world more important than the salvation of our souls. I am not interested in a “close-enough Christianity.” That is not what our Savior intended.
   The Apostles taught for years before a word of Scripture was written, and did not have the New Testament as we know it today, but were able to teach the faith without error. Who teaches with their authority today? If there is a Church outside the Catholic Church (not counting the Orthodox) that teaches with the same authority today, then I will abandon the Catholic Church for that church.

1. 
   What, no takers?

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

Time to obey Scripture and cease from fruitless debates. But it seems that you are having trouble following your own advice.

All Protestants and NO Catholics. Strange thoughts from someone that uses the words penned down by Catholics that became the Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Next up for BibleAlone and Hoosier:

In order to arrive at a proper understanding of sola scriptura, we need to back up a bit and understand some basic characteristics of the Church founded by Christ. Let’s begin.

Which of the following is true?

1. Jesus established more than one church.
2. Jesus established one, invisible church which all true believers must belong to regardless of their denomination, and in order for this to be true, one of the following must also be true:
   A. Doctrinal differences don’t matter, or
   B. Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are permitted.
3. Jesus established one, visible church which all true believers must belong to, and in order for this to be true, doctrinal unity MUST be a characteristic of this church.

Please let me know which of these options you agree with, and we’ll go from there. :yup:

 

[Sean_Boyle]

So now I ask you to document with evidence from the Scriptures and the ECFs that they believed there was another infallible source besides Scripture. Waiting …

The apostles!

I’m hoping that you don’t need more proof because that would border on unbelief.

 

[joshua_b]

What, no takers?

Of course not, just as noone wants to give me the verse that says that the compilation of books we call the Bible is God’s final and full revelation of His Word.

They also don’t want to talk about the history of the Bible, because to discuss WHY the Bible was even compiled in the first place would be an acknowledgement of the degree to ehich the early Church actually relied on it in relation to the authority of their teachings.

Personally I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the assertion that Scripture is the final and FULL revelation of God, but it is not neccessary for Scripture to state that it is the final and full revelation of God. How can it be God’s FULL revelation and yet not reveal to us that it is His FULL revelation (seems a little paradoxical to me…but I’m just an amateur wannabe Catholic apologist so what do I know ???)

 

[SolaScriptura]

Of course not, just as noone wants to give me the verse that says that the compilation of books we call the Bible is God’s final and full revelation of His Word.

They also don’t want to talk about the history of the Bible, because to discuss WHY the Bible was even compiled in the first place would be an acknowledgement of the degree to ehich the early Church actually relied on it in relation to the authority of their teachings.

Personally I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the assertion that Scripture is the final and FULL revelation of God, but it is not neccessary for Scripture to state that it is the final and full revelation of God. How can it be God’s FULL revelation and yet not reveal to us that it is His FULL revelation (seems a little paradoxical to me…but I’m just an amateur wannabe Catholic apologist so what do I know ???)

I’m not taking it, because I have decided to ignore the Catholic Fundamentals who seem incapable/unwilling to comprehend basic arguments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course not, just as noone wants to give me the verse that says that the compilation of books we call the Bible is God’s final and full revelation of His Word.

They also don’t want to talk about the history of the Bible, because to discuss WHY the Bible was even compiled in the first place would be an acknowledgement of the degree to ehich the early Church actually relied on it in relation to the authority of their teachings.

Personally I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the assertion that Scripture is the final and FULL revelation of God, but it is not neccessary for Scripture to state that it is the final and full revelation of God. How can it be God’s FULL revelation and yet not reveal to us that it is His FULL revelation (seems a little paradoxical to me…but I’m just an amateur wannabe Catholic apologist so what do I know ???)

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!

You’re an amateur wannabe Internet Catholic apologist.

That’s even worse.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I’m not taking it, because I have decided to ignore the Catholic Fundamentals who seem incapable/unwilling to comprehend basic arguments.

Are personal attacks acceptable now?

This sort of judgement tends to give some insight to the believer.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Next up for BibleAlone and Hoosier:

In order to arrive at a proper understanding of sola scriptura, we need to back up a bit and understand some basic characteristics of the Church founded by Christ. Let’s begin.

Which of the following is true?

1. Jesus established more than one church.
2. Jesus established one, invisible church which all true believers must belong to regardless of their denomination, and in order for this to be true, one of the following must also be true:
   A. Doctrinal differences don’t matter, or
   B. Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are permitted.
3. Jesus established one, visible church which all true believers must belong to, and in order for this to be true, doctrinal unity MUST be a characteristic of this church.

Please let me know which of these options you agree with, and we’ll go from there. :yup:

**3. And all Christians belong to it. Doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel. Anyone who believes in Jesus as their Saviour is a Christian. To deny this is to break doctrinal unity. You don’t want to do that do you?

Also, your questions were loaded. I’m sure a Protestant could ask some loaded questions to try and “bait” you but I bet it would not be allowed.:yup: **

 

[SolaScriptura]

Are personal attacks acceptable now?

This sort of judgement tends to give some insight to the believer.

Not an insult. Karl Keating has a book called, “Catholics and Fundamentals”. I just also believe there are just as many Catholic Fundamentals.

 

[joshua_b]

Are personal attacks acceptable now?

This sort of judgement tends to give some insight to the believer.

I won’t comment on that. I can’t really, because I’m a FUNDAMENTALIST amateur wannabe INTERNET Catholic apologist.

Now, in regards to the previous post…they are not “loaded questions”, they are very legitimate. You just can’t answer them without conflicting with your own presupposed theology.

Pushing that aside, where in the Scripture does it say that doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel ? Next question, in logical procession, is, can you qualify what the definition of “Gospel” is ? Catholics contend that your statement about doctrine is true, but the Gospel is not confined to the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but is the total message of Jesus the Christ as He entrusted it to His Apostles. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove Scripturally that the Gospel message is limited to the first four books of the New Testament and nothing else.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**I won’t comment on that. I can’t really, because I’m a FUNDAMENTALIST amateur wannabe INTERNET Catholic apologist. **

Let it go already…:crying:

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Now, in regards to the previous post…they are not “loaded questions”, they are very legitimate. You just can’t answer them without conflicting with your own presupposed theology.

**Yes they are. I think I did a pretty fine job answering it myself. :dancing: **

Pushing that aside, where in the Scripture does it say that doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel ? Next question, in logical procession, is, can you qualify what the definition of “Gospel” is ? Catholics contend that your statement about doctrine is true, but the Gospel is not confined to the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but is the total message of Jesus the Christ as He entrusted it to His Apostles. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove Scripturally that the Gospel message is limited to the first four books of the New Testament and nothing else.

The Gospel is “Good News”. Basically, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ done on behalf of sinners to give them the free gift of eternal life if they believe in Him. He then promises that He will never cast them out, that they have "eternal life’, etc. I’m sure you will find every Protestant Christian to believe in this. The question is, do you?

Perhaps Philippians 3:18? I’m sure there are more. The heart of the Bible is Christ and the Gospel. Doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel. If one Church believes in quiet reverance but another Church believes in dancing and clapping and singing with loud voices, what does it matter? Their doctrinal unity is in the Gospel. LOL you assume that I believe the Gospel to be limited to the first four books of the New Testament? I’ll get back to you when I can stop laughing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

3. And all Christians belong to it. Doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel. Anyone who believes in Jesus as their Saviour is a Christian. To deny this is to break doctrinal unity. You don’t want to do that do you?

**Also, your questions were loaded. I’m sure a Protestant could ask some loaded questions to try and “bait” you but I bet it would not be allowed.:yup: **

I’m sure you feel they were loaded since they lay out the logic of your position in a way that creates dissonance within you. That uncomfortable feeling you experienced was the result of some reality sinking in.

Moving on, you agree that all true Christians must belong to one visible church and that doctrinal unity is a characteristic of that Church. I share your belief. I also agree that anyone who believes in Jesus deserves the title of Christian. I also agree that doctrinal unity must be based upon the Gospel. The full Gospel properly understood. I’m sure you also agree that the Gospel improperly understood is another Gospel.

Woo hoo! We have taken a step together today! :clapping:

So, let me ask: do all of your Protestant brothers and sisters enjoy doctrinal unity with you concerning:1. Infant baptism?

1. Baptism as regeneration or as symbol?
2. The Lord’s Supper as literally the body and blood of Jesus or as symbol?
3. “Eternal Assurance” of salvation?
4. The number and nature of the sacraments?
5. Ordination of women pastors/priests?
6. Ordination of practicing homosexual pastors/priests?
   None of what I have written is Catholic per se. So, stop arguing with me as a Catholic for a moment and think about this.

PROTESTANTS don’t agree amongst themselves on these and numerous other issues, yet they all look to the Bible Alone as their sole infallible rule of faith.

How can members of one church with one Lord, one faith, one baptism come to such diverse, conflicting and contradictory opinions about what the Bible means and still claim to be ONE church?

 

[RNRobert]

Of course not, just as noone wants to give me the verse that says that the compilation of books we call the Bible is God’s final and full revelation of His Word.

They also don’t want to talk about the history of the Bible, because to discuss WHY the Bible was even compiled in the first place would be an acknowledgement of the degree to ehich the early Church actually relied on it in relation to the authority of their teachings.

Personally I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the assertion that Scripture is the final and FULL revelation of God, but it is not neccessary for Scripture to state that it is the final and full revelation of God. How can it be God’s FULL revelation and yet not reveal to us that it is His FULL revelation (seems a little paradoxical to me…but I’m just an amateur wannabe Catholic apologist so what do I know ???)

A couple years ago when I joined this forum I started a thread on sola scriptura, I got into a debate with a Lutheran. He explained he did not hold to the fundamentalist view of sola scriptura, but rather looked at what the early church fathers, councils, etc. said, and this was his justification for why he felt the church strayed from the truth in promoting Marian doctrines, Papal authority, etc. However, to me it seemed he was doing what an Orthodox acquaintance of mine referred to as “lateral arabesques.” It seems Sola Scriptura, regardless of whether it is interpreted fundamentally or not, comes down to the same thing: “Scripture means what I think it means” or as Orthodox Christian Frank Schaeffer (son of Evangelical Francis Schaeffer) put it, “Sola Scriptura is the first verse of ‘I did it my way.’”
Another thing. During the early days of the church, the apostles had authority to refute false teaching, discipline erring Christians, etc. Yet, whenever I ask what became of that authority, all I get is a deafening silence.

I am not being fundamentalist. I simply wish to know which church inherited the teaching authority of the Apostles. I agree Scripture is inerrant, and nothing the Church teaches can contradict that (we can argue whether Catholic teaching does or not contradict Scripture until the crack of doom, but that’s not the point). However, when two churches teach conflicting interpretations of Scripture (i.e, nature of the Lord’s Supper, necessity of Baptism, nature of salvation, etc.) who is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and what is wrong?