Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Cinette]

Protestants gave the Catholic Church the name “Catholic”. Before people began divorcing themselves from it, why call it anything other than Christian? To go looking for the name ‘Catholic Church’ in Scripture is redundant. Quite pointless.
Against what are Protestants breaking away from and protesting about? They cannot call themselves the one true Church, by their title they claim they are a splinter group. From what did they splinter? It must have been the Catholic Church.

*No Kevin you are absolutely incorrect!

If I am not mistaken it was Ignatius of Antioch who first called the Church Catholic towards the end of the 1st century. I must look it up.

I know for sure that it was not Protestants who gave the name Catholic to the Church - what Protestants did (Anglicans) was call the Catholic Church “Roman” because many Anglicans like to call themselves Catholic and so distinguish themselves from Catholics they began to call us “ROMAN CATHOLIC” and it STUCK!!! The official name of the Church is “The Catholic Church” but many Catholics call themselves “Roman” - I don’t.

God bless
Cinette

*

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
If it was answered, I wouldn’t be asking again. What if some people disagreed with the Bereans regarding something in scripture; who then would have the authority to resolve their differences, if Paul and the rest of the Apostles were out of town?

If you and I are both subject to sacred scripture alone, and not the other way around, and you and I disagree on many things, which we do, then please show me how to use norming to resolve our differences, once and for all? Do what Josiah refuses to do.

Thanks friend…
“Sola Scriptura” isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing regarding something in Scripture, its about authority and accountability.

For you, Joe, assigning “infallibility” to certain men satisfies your questions, and at the same time conveniently exempts you of any personal accountability, right?

**Moondweller, for the very last time, no man (including myself) - is infallible and exempt from accountability, and the leaders belonging to the CC make no such claim. If the Pope claimed to be infallible then why does he go to confession? So silly…I have tried so hard to see things from your perspective, and you have ignored many of my questions, and you continue to say things that make no sense to me.

Moondweller, please answer this question: If you and I are both subject to sacred scripture alone as our final authority, and not the other way around, and you and I disagree on many things, which we do, then please show me how to use sola scriptura (the bible alone as the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences) - to resolve our differences, once and for all? Like you said, it’s about authority and accountability…I am a patient man and will look forward to a logical answer from you. **

 

[joe370]

*No Kevin you are absolutely incorrect!

If I am not mistaken it was Ignatius of Antioch who first called the Church Catholic towards the end of the 1st century. I must look it up.

 

[Cinette]

*One has only to do the maths!

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and the Protestants for 500 years - how can anyone say that it was the Protestants who named the Catholic Church?

:tsktsk:*

 

[Cinette]

*Here is something.

St Ignatius of Antioch (25-110 AD) was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (60-155 AD) and knew the Apostle John, wrote, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” He said this in about the year 95 AD.

 

[Pax]

MD in Christ,

We haven’t crossed paths in awhile…I hope that all has been well with you.

God bless.

 

[moondweller]

**Moondweller, for the very last time, no man (including myself) - is infallible and exempt from accountability, and the leaders belonging to the CC make no such claim.**So you’re saying, then, that the Magisterium (your teaching authority) does indeed have the capacity to err doctrinally, right? And you would disagree with 2034 & 2035 of the CCC, right?

 

[moondweller]

MD in Christ,

We haven’t crossed paths in awhile…I hope that all has been well with you.

God bless.

Yes, all has been well, thank you. And truly God has blessed, having been justified by faith alone. Yourself?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

In a previous post I wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Hear this well Pax.
1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The witness that John talks about here is THE WORD OF GOD. It says in v. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: The word of God is Jesus.
Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, So, if you have the witness in yourself. You have Jesus dwelling in you because you have THE WORD OF GOD dwelling in you. And when we BELIEVE in Jesus Christ THE WORD OF GOD. We have eternal life. Let me ask you Pax. What can you, your church, or any man give that is needed more than this? All that mankind needs is to come to a faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and recieve eternal life and this is clearly pointed out in THE WORD OF GOD as I have pointed out here in 1 Jn. 5. If you do not believe this I can only feel a deep sadness for you and pray that you accept Him not only as your Savior, but also as your Lord.

To which you responded:

I have no problem with the verses you quoted and I stand up with a big Alleluia and an Amen. The problem is that scripture says an awful lot more than the passages you quoted.

You imply here that the scriptures say that there is more that we need to do in order to be justified before God yet you don’t elaborate on what that “more” is

Moreover, you have yet to quote scripture where it says that it is “all sufficient for salvation,” and the passages in your post do not accomplish that for you.

If you want me to quote a scripture that says verbatum that it is “all sufficient for salvation,” I don’t know of any. As to your comment that “the passages in your post do not accomplish that for you” I would ask that you try to answer the question I pose.

Let me ask you Pax. What can you, your church, or any man give that is needed more than this?

Now you say:

I
Please note that scripture speaks of believing Jesus, believing in and on Jesus, and confessing this belief with our lips. Well, scripture says many other things about salvation such as the gospel having the power to save, obedience to the gospel, endurance, hope, baptism, and on, and on, and on. I can give references for all of these things and more, but you are probably beginning to see at least part of my point.

Again you seem to be implying that scripture says that more is needed for our salvation yet you don’t elaborate. I’m not sure what you mean by " gospel having the power to save" or "obedience to the gospel"but yes the scriptures do talk of many things, but the whole point of these things is to show us that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

Rom.3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Let me ask again Pax. What more is needed than this?

Most importantly, however, is to note that when scripture talks about “belief in Jesus” for salvation, scripture is talking in short hand. We know this because the reference is really in terms of all that Jesus said and taught. We must trust in the Lord and believe all that he said and commanded. That is the true faith in Jesus, and this is where short hand proclamations about how we are saved completely break down especially, IMHO, salvation by faith alone.

Wow this is a novel approach. Don’t think I’ve ever run across this (the scripture being a shorthand) approach before. Ok, let me break this down and see if I can decipher what you are saying. You seem to be saying “that when scripture talks “belief in Jesus” for salvation, scripture is talking in short hand” and these “short hand proclamations about how we are saved completely break down especially, IMHO, salvation by faith alone.” when taken by themselves. No, I don’t get it. could you please elaborate.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

*Here is something.

St Ignatius of Antioch (25-110 AD) was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (60-155 AD) and knew the Apostle John, wrote, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” He said this in about the year 95 AD.

Actually, he wrote, “… there is the catholic church.” I agree with what he wrote, I disagree with the implication you tried to make by violating English grammar.

But, where does that quote indicate that The Catholic Church (specifically, particularly, exclusively) is perpetually infallible, incapable of error (in these matters), unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever it exclusively says is just to be accepted “with docility?”

Friend, do you think that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions, then The Catholic Church is fully accountable for what it teaches as doctrine (and you’ve just become non-Catholic or at least an “unfaithful”
Catholic - read your Catechism # 87). And we must then ask, WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming that accountability requires?

Some believe Scripture is the best canon/rule/norma normans for such. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (the RCC, LDS, as well as all of the cults) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for this purpose (none of them do) but because each of them rejects accountability for doctrines in the sole, exclusive, singular case of itself alone, each insisting that self alone is exempt from norming and all must just instead accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility.”

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

pax:

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as 107 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Wrong. What he wrote was, “… there is the catholic church.” The adjective “catholic” was (and still is) a very common and popular one. It means “whole” “universal” “general” “complete” “all-embracing” Oh, and yes, where Jesus and His followers are present - there is the church.

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

Again, follow English grammar and don’t capitolize an adjective - and I agree with everything you wrote.

Now, what in the world does this have to do with Jesus - specifically, particularly and exclusively - founding The Catholic Church, and that that geopolitical denominational institutional entity is and for all perpetuity will be infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, and thus exempt from norming (the only issue we are to be discussing in this thread: norming and the norma normans for such)? That whatever IT and IT alone says is simply to be accepted “with docility?”

Catholic Church” in the Bible

Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.

Is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto

Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

That’s for proving that it’s never so much as even mentioned. Even the common adjective “catholic” is not, much less the moniker of your denomination.

Now, where do those passages stated that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - specifically, particularly, exclusively, perpetually - is infallible, incapable of error, unaccoutable and thus exempt from norming, rather all are simply to accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking?”



.

 

[Cinette]

Actually, he wrote, “… there is the catholic church.” I agree with what he wrote, I disagree with the implication you tried to make by violating English grammar.

But, where does that quote indicate that The Catholic Church (specifically, particularly, exclusively) is perpetually infallible, incapable of error (in these matters), unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever it exclusively says is just to be accepted “with docility?”

Friend, do you think that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions, then The Catholic Church is fully accountable for what it teaches as doctrine (and you’ve just become non-Catholic or at least an “unfaithful”
Catholic - read your Catechism # 87). And we must then ask, WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming that accountability requires?

Some believe Scripture is the best canon/rule/norma normans for such. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (the RCC, LDS, as well as all of the cults) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for this purpose (none of them do) but because each of them rejects accountability for doctrines in the sole, exclusive, singular case of itself alone, each insisting that self alone is exempt from norming and all must just instead accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility.”

.

*As a good Protestant you must protest of course! I would not expect anything else. However have you noticed that the protests of the modern Lutheran differs radically from the protests of Luther himself? Would Luther recognise the church which is named after him if he were to come to life today?

As for violating English grammer, your last sentence is a good example!

God bless
Cinette
*

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Catholic means “universal” - St Ignatius of Antioch & St Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was universal.
The proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.
“…it does happen that the Church is called Catholic too, because it embraces all truth, and there is even some fragments of this truth to be found in different heresies” (St Augustine)

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Actually, he wrote, “… there is the catholic church.” I agree with what he wrote, I disagree with the implication you tried to make by violating English grammar.

But, where does that quote indicate that The Catholic Church (specifically, particularly, exclusively) is perpetually infallible, incapable of error (in these matters), unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever it exclusively says is just to be accepted “with docility?”

Friend, do you think that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions, then The Catholic Church is fully accountable for what it teaches as doctrine (and you’ve just become non-Catholic or at least an “unfaithful”
Catholic - read your Catechism # 87). And we must then ask, WHAT is the most sound norma normans for the norming that accountability requires?

Some believe Scripture is the best canon/rule/norma normans for such. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (the RCC, LDS, as well as all of the cults) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for this purpose (none of them do) but because each of them rejects accountability for doctrines in the sole, exclusive, singular case of itself alone, each insisting that self alone is exempt from norming and all must just instead accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility.”

.

As a good Protestant you must protest of course!

I don’t think you addressed anything from your quote of me, or answered any of the questions in it.

.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Are not other denominations outside the “Roman” Catholic Church capable of infallibility?
Where does it say in the Catholic Catechism “The Roman Catholic Church has monopoly on the works of the Holy Spirit”? or “The Roman Catholic Church has sole ownership rights to the Holy Spirit”?

How can we in all decency presume only the Roman Catholic Church can be infallible?
This is diametrically opposed to the V2’s spirit of ecumenism, closing us to dialogue with our brothers and sisters in Christ!

“Thy habitation is in the midst of deceipt: through deceipt they have refused to know me, saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts: Behold I will melt, and try them: for what else shall I do before the daughter of my people?” (Jeremias 9:6-7)

 

[joe370]

So you’re saying, then, that the Magisterium (your teaching authority) does indeed have the capacity to err doctrinally, right? And you would disagree with 2034 & 2035 of the CCC, right?

Just as the apostles were sinful, fallible people, so are the members of the CC, (which I believe is the church founded by Jesus; if you don’t believe this then simply give me the name of its founder and I will say: you are right) - and both the fallible apostles (leaders of Jesus’ established church in the 1st century) - and the present day fallible successors in the 21st century (leaders of the church founded by Jesus) - are empowered (Acts 1) - by the perpetual guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit (John 14:16) - to be witnesses of all Jesus’ revealed truths, doctrinally speaking…empowered by the ever-presence of the HS to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded the sinful, fallible apostles, and Jesus said: surely I am with you always, to the very end of the time, and I believe Him. He was speaking to just the apostles (Jesus’ fledgling church) - who all passed away in the 1st century, so clearly Jesus was referring to His church that would traverse the centuries until His glorious return, and I am in no way suggesting that the Holy Spirit is not ever-present in all of the Protestant churches, in the world today.

If you don’t agree with me, well, that’s cool.

What about the teaching authority of all of the PC’s: do they have the capacity to be right (error free) - regarding the revealed doctrinal truths found in your final authority, the bible? If the bible alone was my final authority (as a former Lutheran) - then why did I need to defer to the authority of my former pastor, who teaches with authority, every Sunday, from his pulpit?

The isolated, autonomous Lutheran church (teaches) - agrees with the isolated, autonomous CC regarding the Eucharist; hundreds of other isolated, autonomous PC’s (teach) - disagree with the Lutheran church and the isolated, autonomous Anglican church, regarding the Eucharist, and they all use the “bible alone” as their final authority for evaluating doctrine. Which one is teaching infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit or are they both right, which means that the HS is guiding isolated, autonomous church(es) into conflicting truths, as opposed to all truth? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter, because the bible tells me that it does.

Let me add one thing. I earnestly believe that all churches comprise the Mystical Body of Christ to which Jesus Christ is the Savior. However, that was not part of God’s original plan, according to the bible; the Mystical Body of Christ was suppose to be comprised of just one church, according to the holy bible - right?

 

[joe370]

Catholic means “universal” - St Ignatius of Antioch & St Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was universal.
The proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.
“…it does happen that the Church is called Catholic too, because it embraces all truth, and there is even some fragments of this truth to be found in different heresies” (St Augustine)

Why do you think that people like Ignatius and Polycarp started referring to Jesus’ church as catholic (universal), as opposed to the church, or the “way” or the apostolic church, or the Apostolic Christian church?

Prior to the protestant reformation (from the time of Pentecost to the 16th century; in other words, universal) - only one church, which eventually coalesced into 2 churches (with the same foundation of course) - went by the name catholic, and I cannot provide you with the name of the man (or men) - that founded this one divided church, other than Jesus Christ. Can you?

Following the 16th century Protestant Reformation (which of course reformed nothing) - many churches were established, and they never once used the name “catholic” to identify their churches, for these churches did not span the centuries, from Pentecost to the present; in other words, they are not universal, and I can give you the name of the man that founded these non-catholic churches and when, and his name will not be Jesus Christ, and, as alway: I am in no way impugning the wonderful works of these wonderful churches. I am merely being historically factual.

I belong to the CC (universal in space and time) - and the seat of the final authority for the CC happens to reside in Rome. Kevin, is this the case for you as well?

 

[joe370]

AmericanJosiah, where in the holy bible does it state that the holy bible is the Christians final authority?

I realize that the Holy Bible is God breathed, and I realize the holy bible is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, but who was/is charged with the commission (via the guidance of the HS in perpetuity) - to teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? I know it wasn’t me or you.

 

[kempo1]

as Ftr. Pacwa said last night on ewtn the C.C. didnt create the bible, But She recieved it by the holy spirit and shared it with the world. C.C. recieved it and was the only church with it for hundreds of years. So the early fathers most definitely were under divine authority to interpret and distribute the information they had received. As i said before if everything was laid out for us by the early church on virtually everything, how does the modern churches justify being so out of sync of what was laid down 2000 years ago, i mean these churches today resemble nothing as described as a church in the bible. I just dont see how they justify any of it. That being said i would never question anyones salvation or love of our Lord and savior. I just think since Luther many souls were very missled.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Why do you think that people like Ignatius and Polycarp started referring to Jesus’ church as catholic (universal), as opposed to the church, or the “way” or the apostolic church, or the Apostolic Christian church?

Don’t know, you’ll have to ask them Best I can do is surmise

Prior to the protestant reformation (from the time of Pentecost to the 16th century; in other words, universal) - only one church, which eventually coalesced into 2 churches (with the same foundation of course) - went by the name catholic, and I cannot provide you with the name of the man (or men) - that founded this one divided church, other than Jesus Christ. Can you?

No, the final authority for the CC happens to be God
The Pope’s official residence is in Vatican City