Convert! The Bible is the final word!

[porthos11]

Relax…

I’m actually a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I was just curious, ***IF *** the Bible specifically used the words “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” would you still remain Catholic?

Since the Bible says nothing like that, I cannot be a Sola Scripturist.

However, IF the Bible did say that, I would be a Sola Scripturist, and would leave Catholicism. (Though, I would have never converted in the first place.)

Obviously this poll applies primarily to Catholics.

You’d be Catholic, because then the Catholic Church would be Sola Scriptura. Theoretically.

However, Sola Scriptura is logically impossible, EVEN IF the Bible said it is to be the only rule of faith.

Because to know which books are the books of the Bible with certainty of faith, Tradition is still needed.

 

[whatevergirl]

Relax…

I’m actually a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I was just curious, ***IF *** the Bible specifically used the words “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” would you still remain Catholic?

Since the Bible says nothing like that, I cannot be a Sola Scripturist.

However, IF the Bible did say that, I would be a Sola Scripturist, and would leave Catholicism. (Though, I would have never converted in the first place.)

Obviously this poll applies primarily to Catholics.

Catholicism would have taught that, then, I would think.

 

[Ignatius]

Relax…

I’m actually a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I was just curious, ***IF ***the Bible specifically used the words “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” would you still remain Catholic?
.

If the Bible said that, it would be Catholic Dogma.

 

[francesco920]

Catholicism would have taught that, then, I would think.

I’m not sure I agree. Since that verse would make the Bible imperfect, then that would also mean that Catholicism would not be the true religion since the Bible is indeed a necessary part of the the deposit of the faith. Therefore this hypothetical false Catholicism would not be bound to adhere to the hypothetical false Bible at all, since it would not be the true faith anyway, just something made up by men.

If the Bible said that, it would be Catholic Dogma.

I would say rather that if the Bible said that there would be no Catholic Dogma (see above)

 

[Miserere_Mei]

If the Bible actually said that, it would be known and promulgated from the beginning and there would be no Protestants at all. Actually, “Catholics” would be the equivalent to protestants and schismatics. Since we don’t go by “the Bible alone.”

 

[christcnection1]

If the Bible actually said that, it would be known and promulgated from the beginning and there would be no Protestants at all. Actually, “Catholics” would be the equivalent to protestants and schismatics. Since we don’t go by “the Bible alone.”

That’s entirely possible, if not likely.

 

[Bishopite]

Relax…

I’m actually a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I was just curious, ***IF ***the Bible specifically used the words “The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith,” would you still remain Catholic?

Since the Bible says nothing like that, I cannot be a Sola Scripturist.

However, IF the Bible did say that, I would be a Sola Scripturist, and would leave Catholicism. (Though, I would have never converted in the first place.)

Obviously this poll applies primarily to Catholics.

I would suspect that if the Bible did say that, then the Holy Spirit would have had to specifically inspire an author to inscripturate an index within the last of the sacred books that specifically indicated the complete list of infallible books.

 

[porthos11]

I would suspect that if the Bible did say that, then the Holy Spirit would have had to specifically inspire an author to inscripturate an index within the last of the sacred books that specifically indicated the complete list of infallible books.

But then how are we to know that the Table of Contents is inspired?

Sola Scriptura is impossible to defend using reason because it assumes too much. So even if the Bible had said, “Bible alone is sole rule of faith”, someone still had to define the list of inspired books. And if the Book of Contents was actually inspired, we needed a way to know that with certainty of faith.

 

[zemi]

Netiher I do much like speculation It’s “what if”, “what if”… You know - what if one of the heresies was actually right? What if Jesus actually came from a space ship? etc. etc.

 

[LilyM]

It’s not even possible for a book to be the sole rule of faith, regardless of whether that claim is made within the book itself.

A book is only useful in this regard in as much as people read it, interpret it, apply it practically to their lives. And there ain’t no two people on the planet who will agree over it just from reading the book itself. Always a human element comes into it.

 

[Ilroy]

And just for fun, how bout adding this to the mix…
Which translation would be the sole rule of faith…would it only be the original transcripts in the original languages…if that’s the case, how are the rest of us going to know ANY of what we need to believe since most of us don’t speak or understand the original languages…how would we know those are actually THE original transcripts and not just a copy made soon after?

Anyone else want to add to the fun?

 

[rwoehmke]

Don’t see it as a problem as Peter and his successors would be the ones in charge of telling us what it all means. Then there is the fact that currently there is no contradiction between the Bible and Tradition. It is just that with the addition of Tradition our Church is that much richer in having a fuller understanding of what the Scriptures really say. All the Sacraments are covered. The role of Mary as Queen Mother of Christ the King is covered. etc. If I am not mistaken. although we base our beliefs on the Bible and Tradition. the minimum knowledge needed for Salvation is taught by the Bible alone when correctly interpreted by the Church.