Catholics believe in Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cazayoux said:
I don’t understand why the definition of Sola Scriptura means something other than, literally, “Scripture Alone”.
It’s only two words. It’s a straightforward translation.

If you do not believed in “scripture alone”, then “sola scripture” does not describe your belief.

To state that you believe in Sola Scriptura, but that it means something other than (or more than) “scripture alone”, is ludicrous.

michel
Click to expand...
You might just as well say that “Co-Redemptrix” obviously means that Mary is equal with Christ as a redeemer. To say that it means anything else is ludicrous.

In fact what is ludicrous is to think that any important theological idea can be adequately expressed in a simple slogan.

Edwin
 
SolaScriptura said:
Catholics believe they are saved by “grace alone”? Does this mean absolutely nothing else is needed? Not even means for communicating this grace(e.g. baptism) or cooperating grace(e.g. good works)?
Click to expand...
Grace is a necessary condition for salvation. It does not mean that nothing else is needed in conjunction with it for salvation, even though all of those things ultimately depend upon grace.

Your question is a strange one to me, because most protestants I know fully believe in the three onlys - grace, faith, and scripture. I don’t know any of them that would conclude that because they believe in salvation through grace alone it would exclude salvation through faith and scripture. Maybe I’m missing your point.
 
tdgesq said:
Grace is a necessary condition for salvation. It does not mean that nothing else is needed in conjunction with it for salvation, even though all of those things ultimately depend upon grace.

Your question is a strange one to me, because most protestants I know fully believe in the three onlys - grace, faith, and scripture. I don’t know any of them that would conclude that because they believe in salvation through grace alone it would exclude salvation through faith and scripture. Maybe I’m missing your point.
Click to expand...
I was making a point in response to this: Post 39
 
Truthstalker said:
If He expressed Himself completely in Scripture, then it is all there. There is therefore nothing in the Tradition which cannot be found in Scripture.
Click to expand...
The quote says He expressed Himself completely in Christ, not in scripture.
 
This is the way my denomination (Evangelical Presbyterian) defines its view towards the Bible, which failrly could be described as Sola Scriptura:
Scripture is self-attesting and being Truth, requires our unreserved submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is a complete and unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.
Click to expand...
epc.org/about-epc/beliefs/essentials.html

Aside from the number of books, what gives Catholics trouble with this? I think the “supreme and final” bit, but if Scripture does not have it, then Tradtion swallows Scripture, and Scripture does not have any authority on its own, but is only a part of Tradition.

Scripture is not Tradition. But I am told on this thread that it is.
Still puzzled.
 
My problem with that is that it claims to be Truth and the Infallible Word of God. It most certainly is not.

The Truth and Infallible Word of God is Jesus Christ.
 
Truthstalker said:
This is the way my denomination (Evangelical Presbyterian) defines its view towards the Bible, which failrly could be described as Sola Scriptura:

epc.org/about-epc/beliefs/essentials.html

Aside from the number of books, what gives Catholics trouble with this? I think the “supreme and final” bit, but if Scripture does not have it, then Tradtion swallows Scripture, and Scripture does not have any authority on its own, but is only a part of Tradition.

Scripture is not Tradition. But I am told on this thread that it is.
Still puzzled.
Click to expand...
The Protestant Bible has 66 books and your definition fail to mention 27 NT Books. The Catholic Bible consist of 73 OT books, and 27 NT Books.

When the Canon of Scripture was form. It was the Catholic Church in 382 A.D Council of Rome, Council of Hippo 392 A.D, and 397 AD in the Council of Carthage that had the official list of what ought to be in the Bible.

The list included 7 extra books in the OT in all three Councils. The Catholic Church finalized this in the Council of Trent in response to Protestant Reformation. The Protestants remove the 7 OT books in the Bible.

It was a lie that some Protestants say we added those 7 books. We didn’t. The Catholic Church only added 27 NT books into the Bible.
 
Scripture is self-attesting and being Truth, requires our unreserved submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is a complete and unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.
Click to expand...
Well, I would have issue with the usage of “Word of God” that usage borders on blasphemy as it is attributing an authority reserved for Jesus Christ to the Bible. Don’t worry I know that wasn’t the intention I’m just pointing out where I disagree.

“Complete” may be a bit strong as well as the Bible itself says that it isn’t complete in terms what Christ did.

As you pointed out “supreme and final authority” sends off warning bells.

Obviously the removal of some of OT books is an issue as well but you already stated that.

I do however agree that it [The Bible] is infallible and that Jesus is the Living Word. 🙂
 
The Word of God issue…that’s what I get for providing only an excerpt from the whole document. Here’s distinctive #2:
Jesus Christ, the living Word, become flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is true God became true man united in one Person forever. He died on the cross a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He now is our High Priest and Mediator.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added. I don’t think Catholics would have any trouble with any of this statement.

I appreciate your comments, Catholics, because you look at this for the first time and see things I don’t, which is interesting.

Mannyfit75, I would like to see the list of 100 books (73 OT and 27 NT) you claim are in the Catholic Bible. I think the Catholic Bible only has 73 books, including the 27 in the NT. But I would like to keep the focus of this thread off the canon, lest Sola Scriptura’s observation be proven.
 
See? It’s confusing, even when you’ve added that second paragraph, even with emphasis.

The first paragraph you provided, if we are to assume that the first paragraph comes before the second, seems to imply that you provide utmost importance to the words of the Bible, to the point that you have to submit yourself unreservedly to it in all areas of life and “is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks”. By logic, if you have to submit to it in all areas of life and it’s the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks, it is the center of your worship, not Christ.

That, my friend, is idolatry. You don’t worship Christ, you worship a book about Christ.
 
PinoyCatholic said:
See? It’s confusing, even when you’ve added that second paragraph, even with emphasis.

The first paragraph you provided, if we are to assume that the first paragraph comes before the second, seems to imply that you provide utmost importance to the words of the Bible, to the point that you have to submit yourself unreservedly to it in all areas of life and “is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks”. By logic, if you have to submit to it in all areas of life and it’s the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks, it is the center of your worship, not Christ.

That, my friend, is idolatry. You don’t worship Christ, you worship a book about Christ.
Click to expand...
The parallels between this statement and Protestant accusations that Catholics worship Mary or that Catholics worship cookies or the Pope are amazing . There is a term “bibliolatry”, meaning the worship of the Bible, which perhaps is the excess that Protestants can fall into that matches the excess Catholics can fall into. Each side can misunderstand each other so profoundly.

In the Mass the people stand when the priest takes the Gospel and walks with it to the ambo. They honor Christ’s word. We also honor His word. He spoke, and we listen, and He still speaks, by His Spirit, through His Word.

Does Scripture really have no authority among Catholics that is not given by Tradition?
 
rtconstant said:
Well, I would have issue with the usage of “Word of God” that usage borders on blasphemy as it is attributing an authority reserved for Jesus Christ to the Bible.
Click to expand...
How can you say this as a Catholic, when your own Church refers to Scripture as the Word of God all the time? Isn’t that what your lectors say after the Scripture readings? Isn’t the document of Vatican II dealing with Scripture called “Dei Verbum”?

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
How can you say this as a Catholic, when your own Church refers to Scripture as the Word of God all the time? Isn’t that what your lectors say after the Scripture readings? Isn’t the document of Vatican II dealing with Scripture called “Dei Verbum”?

Edwin
Click to expand...
Tis true! :yup:
Every reading at Mass ends with the lector saying “The Word of the Lord” and the people responding “Thanks be to God”. 😉
 
mrs_abbott said:
Tis true! :yup:
Every reading at Mass ends with the lector saying “The Word of the Lord” and the people responding “Thanks be to God”. 😉
Click to expand...
It’s bad enough that liberal Episcopalians want to stop saying this. We don’t need the Catholics questioning it as well!

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
It’s bad enough that liberal Episcopalians want to stop saying this. We don’t need the Catholics questioning it as well!

Edwin
Click to expand...
They’ve altered it over the past couple of years, though. The lector used to say “This is the Word of the Lord”. It seemed to draw more attention to the reading’s significance (my opinion) when they used to say “this is”.
Again, probably just my opinion and doesn’t mean anything to other Catholics here.
 
mrs_abbott said:
They’ve altered it over the past couple of years, though. The lector used to say “This is the Word of the Lord”. It seemed to draw more attention to the reading’s significance (my opinion) when they used to say “this is”.
Again, probably just my opinion and doesn’t mean anything to other Catholics here.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I believe the Latin says simply “Verbum Domini.”

Edwin
 
Back to the OP, I guess it just boils down to the classic chicken and egg story. Which came first?
Same goes with the Bible and Tradition. Which came first?
And hence the debate goes on. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top