L
Learner1969
Guest
Just found this website.
Please explainsola scriptura,
We definitely call ourselves Christians. We rather consider ourselves THE Christian Church, in fact, insofar as we hold that we have the fullness of truth and and adhere to the deposit of faith left to us by Christ and his apostles.When I read that they say Catholics do not call themselves Christians I thought the site is a joke by some unhappy individuals
The bolded is actually a misrepresentation of sola scriptura. Properly understood, SS is opposed to individual interpretation. Using scripture as the final norm is a hermeneutical principle, and hermeneutics is a practice of the Church, not the individual."Sola scriptura" is the term for Protestants who believe that scripture alone, interpreted by them of course, is the basis for all faith. In other words, if it’s not in the Bible (their version of it, of course) then it’s not from God. The phrase “From a Biblical perspective” is the tip-off.
Catholics do not believe this.
My experience with Baptists suggests their understanding of sola scriptura is different than how Anglicans or Lutherans would understand it. As I’m not an adherent to sola scriptura, I’m not going to argue how it should be properly understood, but you can certainly speak to your (or your organized denomination’s) approach.Tis_Bearself:![]()
The bolded is actually a misrepresentation of sola scriptura. Properly understood, SS is opposed to individual interpretation. Using scripture as the final norm is a hermeneutical principle, and hermeneutics is a practice of the Church, not the individual."Sola scriptura" is the term for Protestants who believe that scripture alone, interpreted by them of course, is the basis for all faith. In other words, if it’s not in the Bible (their version of it, of course) then it’s not from God. The phrase “From a Biblical perspective” is the tip-off.
Catholics do not believe this.
Your quote brought to mind an incident related by Steve Ray on YouTube:That was also baloney as plenty of us Catholics have personally accepted Jesus Christ
Yes. Later groups do not hold to the traditional understanding of SS. Another reason for not using the term Protestant when speaking of doctrine, or in this case, practice.JonNC:![]()
My experience with Baptists suggests their understanding of sola scriptura is different than how Anglicans or Lutherans would understand it. As I’m not an adherent to sola scriptura, I’m not going to argue how it should be properly understood, but you can certainly speak to your (or your organized denomination’s) approach.Tis_Bearself:![]()
The bolded is actually a misrepresentation of sola scriptura. Properly understood, SS is opposed to individual interpretation. Using scripture as the final norm is a hermeneutical principle, and hermeneutics is a practice of the Church, not the individual."Sola scriptura" is the term for Protestants who believe that scripture alone, interpreted by them of course, is the basis for all faith. In other words, if it’s not in the Bible (their version of it, of course) then it’s not from God. The phrase “From a Biblical perspective” is the tip-off.
Catholics do not believe this.
And that makes them exactly like the average Catholic who hasn’t looked at the Catechism since childhood.I’m sure the average Protestant waving a Bible to debunk Catholicism wouldn’t know a hermeneutic from Herman Munster, couldn’t even spell the word and couldn’t care less.
My experience is you would not qualify.I sometimes also think we need a forum for people who don’t sit around studying -ology all day to discuss things in real world terms.
Got Questions doesn’t set doctrine or practice, but you are welcome to your opinionGot Questions” is obviously not run by mainline Protestants. I’ll stick by my original explanation, thanks.
I love that idea. I have often said that one of the people that lead me to be Catholic was John MacArthur, for that very reason. Just read very carefully if you do this. As I said on another thread, one’s own proficiency at the language arts is essential. Take for example the very first questions:sola scriptura,
I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?
This is so obviously illogical. The very point it is making is assumed in the question. They say the mean no offense, but the only offense should be their own ineptness at reasoning. So, here is an irony. The very mistake the usually careful MacArthur makes, they make, in the very first question!
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html
Consider these two phrases:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for… (2 Timothy 3:16)
Scripture is perfectly and fully sufficient for… (paraphrase of 2 Timothy 3:16)
This substitution (“sufficient” for “useful”) is used often, in fact, everywhere I have seen, as proof that the Bible teaches sola scriptura. After all, if the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, then the principle is a self-contradiction.
Everyone knows, if they take any time to think and not just accept what they read, that “useful” is not “sufficient.” A hammer is useful in building a house. A hammer is not sufficient to build a house. Shelter is useful to live. Shelter is not sufficient to live. Scripture is useful to build us up to be all God wants us to be. Scripture is not sufficient (necessarily) to build us up to be all God wants us to be.
Sadly, I have come across numerous practicing Catholics over the years who seem confused over this, and who have said things like, “My mother left the Catholic Church and became a Christian.”When I read that they say Catholics do not call themselves Christians I thought the site is a joke by some unhappy individuals
This reminds me of an incident a couple of weeks ago when my son and I were leaving for soccer. A rather rude kid in the neighborhood saw his uniform and said to him, “No offense, but I think you’re gonna lose!”I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?
This is so obviously illogical. The very point it is making is assumed in the question. They say the mean no offense, but the only offense should be their own ineptness at reasoning. So, here is an irony. The very mistake the usually careful MacArthur makes, they make, in the very first question!
Another way of looking at it is that CC has the biblical perspective, the bible as source of truth, but also Tradition as equal source of truth. Further, bible is also interpreted by same said church, the CC, just as P churches do for themselves. The big difference is that CC church puts its tradition, it’s teachings , equally as authoritative and inspired as Scripture itself, while P churches do not. Both churches look at tradition (council decrees, church father writings).Sola scriptura” is the term for Protestants who believe that scripture alone, interpreted by them of course, is the basis for all faith. In other words, if it’s not in the Bible (their version of it, of course) then it’s not from God. The phrase “From a Biblical perspective” is the tip-off.
Catholics do not believe this.