Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Jericho, you said:

When ever possible scripture should be used to define itself. This will minimize the effects of outside influences from tainting the original intent.

I agree with N2; this makes no sense to me. How can scripture define itself???

 

[jericho777]

Based on a different understanding now vs. the first century, yes. No, it does not violate scripture.

Still waiting for an example…

Dogmas of Mary.

 

[jericho777]

Jericho, do you believe that the bible alone ( sola scriptura) - was the Christians final authority in the 1st century, as opposed to the church leaders of Matthew 16, arbitrating, evaluating and resolving doctrinal differences, with the aid of both tradition and scripture?

Yes Over 100 times in the NT scripture was the authority or basis used to determine what would be done.

 

[jericho777]

Jericho, you said:

I agree with N2; this makes no sense to me. How can scripture define itself???

We should look to scripture first for direction, guidance and insight. It is after all the word of God. I believe the bible is the final authority and reveals all truths necessary for salvation.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

We should look to scripture first for direction, guidance and insight. It is after all the word of God. I believe the bible is the final authority and reveals all truths necessary for salvation.

You have yet to explain however, how scripture reveals to us.

Who’s interpretation is correct? Yours or mine?

If you come to me and say “I believe Jesus is God because the scripture reveals it so,” and a Jehovah’s Witness comes up and says “No, he is a man, for the scripture reveals it so.”

Who’s right? You because you say you have the Holy Spirit? Or would you point to the tradition of Church scholars and writers from the early Church who have conversed with the apostles and know their direct teachings?

You are stuck on personal interpretation it seems. This “Scripture interprets Scripture” notion is nonsensical.

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie, what do you mean by “based on a different understanding now vs. the first century”. Seems to imply Theology is ever-changing, that it’s all hypothetical, and one day when our understanding is sufficiently expanded we will realize how wrong we have been about everything we believed all these years.
The death of God theology has been trialled and found wanting.

What I meant, Kevin, is an “improved understanding”. Although Aquinas’ teachings weren’t all accepted as dogmatic, for example, his understanding of ensoulment not quite happening at conception was based on a rudimentary understanding of biology. Since then, we have a different view of when ensoulment occurs.

Another example of a developed theology is the notion of a just war.

Of course, there are some areas of theology that do not and will not ever be “improved upon” or “better understood”. It’s not a matter of being wrong, per se, it’s more a matter of being better understood or better explained.

We should look to scripture first for direction, guidance and insight. It is after all the word of God. I believe the bible is the final authority and reveals all truths necessary for salvation.

That’s the point when scripture says one thing and tradition says another I believe scripture and you believe tradition.

Dogmas of Mary.

How are the marian dogmas and scripture opposed? You claim that scripture says one thing and the marian dogmas another. Please elaborate, and please don’t just write that they’re non-biblical. There are Protestant theologians that have concluded, from scripture alone, that Mary’s virginity is perpetual.

 

[PRmerger]

Dogmas of Mary.

No dogmas of Mary contradict Scripture.

Each and every doctrine and dogma on Mary reinforces and strengthens our understanding of Jesus.

For example, calling Mary* theotokos*, or “God-bearer” is, essentially, all about Jesus being God.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Hey…

Maybe this would help some of our protestant brothers and sisters understand Orthodoxy much better:
**
youtube.com/watch?v=zJ7Y_eFq6l8&feature=related

 

[PRmerger]

None of the verses provided mentions the Catholic Church.

Fair enough.

However, it’s clear that the Scriptures cited point to the infallibility of some church, yes? The Church that existed in the first century perhaps?

 

[Newbie2]

No dogmas of Mary contradict Scripture.

Each and every doctrine and dogma on Mary reinforces and strengthens our understanding of Jesus.

For example, calling Mary* theotokos*, or “God-bearer” is, essentially, all about Jesus being God.

The classic example they give, based on a limited understanding of Scripture and scriptural “cherry picking” is Rom. 3:23 “…for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” to “prove” that Mary’s Immaculate Conception is contrary to scripture.

Just goes to show, methinks, that with an incomplete view of scripture one can set about “proving” pretty much anything.

 

[PRmerger]

The classic example they give, based on a limited understanding of Scripture and scriptural “cherry picking” is Rom. 3:23 “…for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” to “prove” that Mary’s Immaculate Conception is contrary to scripture.

Just goes to show, methinks, that with an incomplete view of scripture one can set about “proving” pretty much anything.

Yep. Romans 3:23 comes back to bite them, though, when atheists point that out to show them: if ALL have sinned, then that proves that your Jesus sinned as well, does it not?

Clearly, the atheists cannot use that verse against Catholics, for we have the correct understanding of what truth St. Paul was imparting.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

**Hey…

Maybe this would help some of our protestant brothers and sisters understand Orthodoxy much better:
**
youtube.com/watch?v=zJ7Y_eFq6l8&feature=related

I love Orthodoxy. I just wish y’all accepted the filioque and the charismatic movement.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hey Kevin…

Most Protestants will simply say: the CC was not the church of Matthew 16; the CC was not originally a sect of Judaism. The CC is a church founded by a man, as opposed to God, but they never tell when the CC was founded and by whom. If the CC is not the church of Matthew 16… was not originally a sect of Judaism, (which is the case for each and every Protestant church) - then where, in the world today, is the church of Matthew 16, which was originally a sect of Judaism? Of course no one will tell me because the answer is already patently obvious.

The Christians were first called Christians at Antioch, it says so in Scripture. Presumably you imply CC is not Christian? More like a social club?

 

[ncgolf]

At least as applied to doctrine, what you just stated is called “Sola Scriptura.”

The written word is Scripture but I did not say the fullness of God’s revelation is found in Scripture only. I have yet to find in Scripture the definitive statement that Scripture as the only source of revelation.

It is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (the word means “measuring stick”) in the norming of doctrines.

Where is this concept found in Scripture? Catholics do not use Scripture as not the only source of revelation. The total desposit of faith includes but is not limited to Scripture. Scripture never points to itself as the only source though it is a source that is without error.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture in the norming of its doctrines

What doctrines does the Church teach that aren’t Scriptually based? Where does the Canon teach norming as the correct way to validate doctrine?

, it does so because it rejects norming of its doctrines.

What you don’t accept is the fact that the Church’s understanding of Scripture does not agree with yours and this must be explained somehow, someway.

It rather insists that it itself alone is infallible, incapable of error in these matters, when it speaks - Jesus is speaking, and thus the demanded response is not norming but acceptance with docility.

How else does one respond to Jesus speaking? I say again why the big hangup with docility? What part of your intellect is insulted by this?

The Rule of Law embraces the Constitution as the supreme law.

Not law … source. There is no law in the Constitution but within it can be found what we use as the background to what is and is not valid law.

Point is: all are held ACCOUNTABLE - no defendant may exempt self from such and simply rather demand that all just accept whatever he alone says or does as correct because he alone is infallible and incapable of error, exempt from norming, and all he alone says or does is rather to be accepted with docility.

I have looked at this for 10 minutes and cannot figure out what you are saying.
What I will say is when the Church speaks on faith and morals … it is Christ speaking … the living Christ through the Church and as I believe this is true … my response to Christ one of docility. I neither apologize nor am ashamed of this fact. The other response is one of protesting.

It’s why I embrace accountability and (off topic) why I reject self designating self as the sole authoritative and unaccountable interpreter (CCC 85, 87, etc.).

What is left then is anarchy.

No one questions the POSSIBILITY of such. “With God, all things are possible” the angel announced to Our Lady. But just because all things are POSSIBLE, does not mean that all things are dogmatic facts.

Some are some not so where are you left then with knowing the truth … self?

When I was a mid teen, I had a friend whose mother was (she alone claimed) the recipient of the divine gifts of prophecy, apostleship, tongues and interpretation of tongues (to name just a few). She not infrequently received “words” from God which she passes on to those on her email list (I am one). Most of these “words” are remarkably unremarkable, but your point seems: “COULD be!” Yes, I agree. Always difficult to debate what COULD BE when speaking of God, what is POSSIBLE with God… But that’s not the issue, is it? The issue is this: The Catholic Church alone claims that it exclusively is the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - infallible, incapable of error, and that whatever it says in these matters is simply to be accepted as true “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” Becky’s mom never remotely claims so much for herself.

To her credit … neither have any Catholic saints who have had extraordinary experiences. The church does not require belief in any of these experiences. Look at the process of verifying miracles in the Catholic Church. No revelation given to private peoples after Christ is required for belief … though the Church does say certain ones can be believed … but they are not required dogma.

 

[ncgolf]

I actually know of no other Christian teacher but The Catholic Church that does (The LDS once did but no longer does).

That is good the list is small.

It is a remarkable claim of self alone for self alone.

It is.

Sure! Just about everything COULD be. But wouldn’t you agree the “burden of proof” for this truly remarkable exemption of self for self from accountability lie with the one so exempting self alone, so insisting for self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted with docility?

Only in matters of faith and morals, no where else.

Especially in the light of all of God’s very stern warnings about false teachers, antirchrists and those that lead many astray? Especially in the light of Jesus’ praise to those who regarded their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, for finding them to be false?

You have tested the Church and found it false … many others through the ages have not. Let me ask again … how do modern Protestants measure an issue like in-vitro fertization and know anything about it’s inherent good or evil based on Scripture?

Especially in light of the fact that Jesus and the Apostles never promised such to The Catholic Church and never regarded it as such - indeed, never mentioned it at all?

We see it differently, now don’t we.

Not at all! In fact, it has the same doctrine of Scripture that most Protestants do!

Doesn’t that bother you?

However, it rejects Scripture as the rule/canon for it’s doctrines.

No … only that Scripture is the only source for the full deposit of faith.

Now for the doctrines of all OTHERS - everyone, everything, every person OTHER than it itself exclusively - it DOES not only permit but insists on accountability and norming - right here, right now.

Call me dense but you lose me.

And for THEM, it DOES have an embraced rule/canon.

Why are not all Protestant denominations then in communion with all others, doctrinally.

One-third of that IS related to Scripture - but not Scripture in writing, on a page, in words all can see. No. For OTHERS, one of the “legs” of the norm is Scripture IN THE HEART of The Catholic Church AS INTERPRETED BY The Catholic Church. That’s what it means by “Scripture” (see your Catehism # 113 for example). So the “Scripture” in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself is PART of the rule/canon for the evalation of all OTHERS, but not for itself. It is unaccountable since it is incapable of error - it alone insists that whatever it alone says is what God says and is simply to be accepted with docility. CCC # 87 for example.

Again I think I see what you are saying but the gyrations you go through in portions of your posting make me question whether I really understand what you are saying.

 

[jlhargus]

I have looked at this for 10 minutes and cannot figure out what you are saying. .

JL: Ncgolf, I got a good chuckle from this, I know exactly what you mean. I got tired of having to read some of AJ’s remarks two or three times. It took longer to figure out what he was saying than it did to answer, once I did figure it out.

 

[joe370]

Carl, you said to PRmerger…

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.
None of the verses provided mentions the Catholic Church.

So, to which church in the world today, do these verses apply? If it’s not the CC, and it’s definitely not any of the PC’s, then help me find the church referred to in the bible. Please do not tell me that it is the church of all believers, because that brings us right back to the CC and all of the PC’s?

It is an assumption that must be proved that the Church referred to in Scripture is, or is restricted to, the Catholic Church as an organization.

Let’s assume that the CC is not the church referred to in scripture. We know it’s not any of the PC’s for they all came much later, and were the product of mere men as opposed to God, just as the CC was, if you are correct. That leaves us with the EOC. Is the Eastern Orthodox church the church referred to in scripture? If not, then please give me the name of the church referred to in scripture, and again, let’s assume that you are right about the CC and I am right about all of the PC’s?

I believe that Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church, is comprised of all believers. However, only one church was founded by Jesus on Pentecost, circa AD 33. The rest were founded by mere men. I can give you the name of the man who founded each and every PC. Please give me the name of the man (or men) - that founded the CC and when; this will be exceedingly helpful!

By telling me that the Church referred to in scripture is the collectivity of all true believers, is to ignore the question: which church (comprised of true believers) - in the world today, was founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, as opposed to the rest of the churches (where true believers can be found) - founded by men centuries later?

If the Church is considered as the collectivity of all true believers then an institution can fall into error without the Church failing.

You believe the CC (an institution founded by man as opposed to God) - fell into error and all of the Protestant Churches, considered as the collectivity of all true believers, is the true church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in the 1st century? BTW, Jesus instituted His church, so the word institution is quite harmless.

Israel was God’s chosen people in the Old Testament yet this did not prevent Israel as a nation from falling.

OK…

The priests and the rulers may have been corrupt but a remnant always remained faithful. The same applies to the Church.

So, you are saying that a remnant of the fallen CC has remained faithful?

As long as there is one true believer Jesus’ promises are fulfilled.

So, it does not matter to which church a Christians belongs? Define a true believer?

Paul tells us of the man of lawlessness…

I believe the temple of God refers the institutional Church meaning that it will be taken over by the anti-Christ.

Are you saying that you believe that the temple of God (which refers the institutional Catholic Church) - will be taken over by the anti-Christ, and the rest of the PC’s are the church of Matthew 16, which will never be prevailed upon by the anti-Christ?

If people believe the Church as an organization is incapable of error they will be deceived.

If error is capable of rearing its ugly head in Jesus’ church, regarding doctrinal truth, revealed to Jesus’ apostolic church, then error can rear its ugly head in all Protestant churches as well. If that’s the case then why would I care what you believe/teach or your church Pastors/teachers, believe and teach?

However there will be a remnant of true believers.

All believers, just so long as it’s not the CC Institution? Of course, no doubt, you will now insist that there are true believers in the CC as well, which simply tells me that the church of Matthew 16 no longer exists, if you are right about the CC…

If all churches, including the CC and all of the PC’s, make up the church of Matthew 16, then the church of Matthew 16 no longer exists, for the simple fact that none of these churches were founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, (including the CC) - if you are correct; which one is it? Please be specific!

True believers do not have to be restricted to one Church organization.

The invisible church - right?

When divisions occurred in the Church as an organization, there is no reason to conclude that true believers were restricted to one part of it.

So, doctrinal truth matters not? It simply does not matter if the church leadership comprised of true believers, teaches, for example, that Jesus was speaking symbolically regarding the Eucharist, and another church leadership, comprised of true believers, believes the exact opposite???

When a tree branches out from the trunk, each branch is no less part of the same tree.

Please give me the name of the original Trunk, so to speak? It can’t be the CC (or any of the PC’s) - because, as an Institution, the CC, according to you, will be taken over by the anti-Christ, and according to history, all PC’s were founded on the Protestant Reformation, as opposed to the Apostles and Prophets.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jericho

Jericho, do you believe that the bible alone ( sola scriptura) - was the Christians final authority in the 1st century, as opposed to the church leaders of Matthew 16, arbitrating, evaluating and resolving doctrinal differences, with the aid of both tradition and scripture?
Yes Over 100 times in the NT scripture was the authority or basis used to determine what would be done.

Yes Over 100 times in the NT scripture was the authority or basis used to determine what would be done.

I agree that the NT was the basis used to determine what would be done, by the church leaders. These leaders resolved doctrinal matters; not the bible alone.

Please give me a list of the passages, illustrating that the NT was the Christians final authority?

 

[joe370]

Jericho, you said:

We should look to scripture first for direction, guidance and insight.

Agreed!

It is after all the word of God.

Agreed!

I believe the bible is the final authority and reveals all truths necessary for salvation.

So, the bible, as you and I interpret it, is the final authority and reveals all truths necessary for salvation?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Hey Kevin…

Most Protestants will simply say: the CC was not the church of Matthew 16; the CC was not originally a sect of Judaism. The CC is a church founded by a man, as opposed to God, but they never tell when the CC was founded and by whom. If the CC is not the church of Matthew 16… was not originally a sect of Judaism, (which is the case for each and every Protestant church) - then where, in the world today, is the church of Matthew 16, which was originally a sect of Judaism? Of course no one will tell me because the answer is already patently obvious.

The Christians were first called Christians at Antioch, it says so in Scripture. Presumably you imply CC is not Christian? More like a social club?

Kevin, why would you say that? The CC is the church of Matthew 16, built on Peter (Kepha). /SIZE]