Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[Truthstalker]

Truth,

Wrong.

The Catechism is divided into 4 parts…

We Believe…this is what we believe
We live…the Sacraments, based on what we believe and we live
We strive to be Holy by modeling Christ as revealed in what we Believe
We pray and ask for help in what we believe

Provide some notions you have of things not ironed out.

Two come to mind:
Molinism versus Thomism
Coredemptrix

 

[kwortham]

Well, thanks, I guess, about the rest.

Please show me where Tradition was used to attack the Arians, from an ECF. An effective attack can be mounted using Scripture alone.

Have you never studied the Ante-Nicene Fathers or the Nice Fathers?

Now, the bible lacks authority / definition outside of the Church. Arius and followers, if the canon had existed at all during his time, would have simply have said that your interpretation is wrong.

On the other hand, the Church is the authority and if they wouldn’t hear the Church, then let them be declared infidels or anathema. The great council of Nicea declared Arius and his followers anathema. This is the Church exercising its authority. The protestant heresy was declared anathema during the council of Trent. Is it not also written thus:

Isiah 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[CopticChristian]

Two come to mind:
Molinism versus Thomism
Coredemptrix

Truth,

The notion of the views of Molinism and Thomism are not as I understand it things that we believe in particular but views…concerning Mary…

call2holiness.org/coredemptrix/coredemptrix.html

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes."

Later in the text of the Prologue it is stated:

With this in mind let us ascertain whether the doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate is addressed in the Catechism.

The Catechism and the Doctrine of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate

The following are a few excerpts quoted directly from the Catechism which indicate clearly that the Catechism does indeed address the doctrine of the Mother of God as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate of mankind:

488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”:

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.

489 After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:

As St. Irenaeus says, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.

511 The Virgin Mary “cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation” (LG 56). She uttered her yes “in the name of all human nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.

964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”; it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your son.”

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus) of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation … Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

973 By pronouncing her “fiat” at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body."

Thus we see unequivocally, that the doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate is indeed addressed within the Catechism.

 

[joe370]

The Reformers, in their supposed “invention” of SS, were picking up on the mood prevalent in the early Church Fathers - you will find the same appeal to Scripture in Augustine, although he is always more complex - in formulating the expression “Sola Scriptura” - Scripture alone as the final authority, not the sole authority. Other authority is subordinate, but still authority.

I guess I won’t get into issue number one because you seem pretty sure on the matter and I respect that.

Regarding my second issue, the CC from the very beginning has always deferred to sacred scripture +sacred tradition. This surprised me as a former protestant. Sola scriptura was never the practice of the CC. Every time a sola scriptura advocate quotes an ECF, claiming that he supports the practice of Sola scriptura, I was able to illustrate that that same ECF was also a proponent of sacred tradition.

The practice of scripture alone as the Christians final authority, in your opinion, is not a 16th century man-made tradition?

 

[kwortham]

kwortham;10181127:

Truthstalker;10180927:

“If this were true, then there would be a verse in the bible claiming itself the pillar and ground of truth.”

Not necessarily. Please show me why that necessarily follows.

The sola scriptura mantra has always been that it must be in the bible to be true. Since the sola scriptura doctrine is nowhere in scripture, then sola scriptura is not true.

“Where is that verse? Where is the direct God given table of contents that tell you which writings belong in the bible?”

That’s silly, don’t you know? You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents. It’s not necessary.

Who lists the inspired books??? The Church!

“The bible was given to us in the late 4th century by the authority of the Church.”

So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.

There were hundreds of writings in circulation until 400 AD. However, some were spurious and others were gnostic. Some were close to being included in the canon like the Shepard of Hermas and the Didache, but were withheld even though they were correct. There is no canon like the Catholic / Orthodox canon until the late 4th century Church defined it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There was definitely nothing like the protestant canon until the late 16th century.

Now, let me say this. I have a copy of the New York Times bestseller for the year 2020. The only problem is that I don’t know which words will end up in it and in which order. The reason for this is because I have the Oxford English Dictionary. All of the words for the NYT 2020 bestseller are there, but I have a hard time seeing the story / message because of the words being out of order and some words are not even supposed to be there.

This is exactly the same as anyone trying to follow sola scriptura until the late 4th century (if Catholic) or late 16the century for the protestant. Which writings were inspired? Which belonged? How did they fit together?

If you insist on claiming that the inspired works were plain for anyone to see, then come show me which words and in which order the Oxford Dictionary gives me the 2020 NYT bestseller. Only the pillar and ground of truth, The Church, could do so for scripture.

Jesus’ church conforms to His desires. He laid out His desires in Scripture.

You are correct that the Church follows His desires. You are wrong in insisting that they were to be laid out in scripture and in scripture only.

Give us the verse where Jesus says that Matthew was to write the gospel of Matthew. Where is the verse that has Jesus commanding that Saul / Paul was to write numerous books? Only Revelation was commanded to be written. Using your logic, you should only have a one book bible.

Please provide scripture that says that Jesus laid “out His desires in Scripture.”

“What does scripture bow down to as being the pillar and ground of truth?”

Again, not necessarily.Nothing. I find this amusing, actually, that you take a Scripture in which the Scripture states what the church is and turn it upside down. In that passage Scripture is saying what the church is, not the church saying what Scripture is. It flows from Scripture to the church, not the other way around.

The Church was created before the NT, so it is Scripture that flows from the Church, not the other way around. What does scripture, which you respect, say?

[1 Tim 3:15] “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Matt 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

According to you, Jesus should have said, “Let him read the scripture. And if he will not hear the scripture, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

watch it Just read the ECF and you will realize they appeal to Scripture frequently and the Tradition seldom if ever.

There were no earlier sola scriptura heretics.

The ECF referred to both. Here are a couple of examples:

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

1st Apology of Saint Justin Martyr Chapter 10 145 AD. “But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give,”

Saint Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 2, Verse 2 170 AD. " But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth."

 

[mackbrislawn]

Ok. I do not think though, that Catholics are willing to state that every doctrinal matter has been completely ironed out, never to be changed again.

 

[pablope]

God is the final authority.

 

[pablope]

How is an ealry christian supposed to know which is Scripture and which is not?

And how can anyone have a bible then…there was no printing press…there was the roman persecution, in which the romans tried to destroy and burn every christian writing they could find…and very few could read or write…so how could anyone know what was scripture and not for the first 400 yrs?

I think the NT was settled by the Council of Carthage in the early 400s - it was a local council.

Actually, earlier than that…as early as AD382…when Pope Damasus issues his proclamation of a canon.

And sure, these were local councils…but their results were submitted to the pope for approval.

What you will also see is that after these councils, there is no question as to what is Scripture and what is not. Actually, one of the reasons for convening the councils was to settle on a canon to have a uniform set of readings to be read during the mass.

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Well…if SS is based on the 66 book protestant bible…then it just proves SS cannot be trusted or believed…it starts from a wrong premise.

Besides…by what authority did the protestants remove 7 books from the canon of the Bible?

 

[Porknpie]

kwortham;10181127:

Truthstalker;10180927:

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

The complete written Word of God doesn’t really matter for sola scriptura?

But that said, how do you know the 66 books that you have are the right number, inerrant and inspired? Why and by what authority is it 66 and not, 56, 46, 31, 20 or even 10?

 

[mackbrislawn]

pablope;10180054:

I don’t really worry about it.

This seems to be the way Protestants deal with thier problems, simply ignore them.

 

[CopticChristian]

=Truthstalker;10181247]

Truthstalker;10180927:

Not necessarily. Please show me why that necessarily follows.That’s silly, don’t you know? You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents. It’s not necessary.** So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? **

That statement falls flat on its face.Jesus’ church conforms to His desires. He laid out His desires in Scripture.Again, not necessarily.Nothing. I find this amusing, actually, that you take a Scripture in which the Scripture states what the church is and turn it upside down. In that passage Scripture is saying what the church is, not the church saying what Scripture is. It flows from Scripture to the church, not the other way around. watch it

The Orthodox include all 4 of the books of the Maccabees while you include only 2. **So the Protestant canon has been there. **Or are you accusing someone of adding a book that was not there before?

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Truth,

The only one falling flat on their face is someone making a statement without support. If you believe that this was evident then you are not aware of the Books that were not included in the Bible and how the process went. I could say…“such ignorance denies a response”…however I would prefer to say your lack of understanding is evident and your ability to prove a point is lacking in knowledge.

I find nothing amusing about your distortion of what you call “Scripture” as here at the CAF, we Believe that Scripture is to be venerated as we venerate the Body of Christ and to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ. Do you believe that ignorance is amusing? In that vain, your daily life is an example of your lack of understanding. The United States came into existence absent writing and that body of people produced writing. The writing did not produce the United States. They met, spoke, discussed and then put in writing what it was they wanted to do. Do you believe that all the laws we follow appeared and then we as people just follow them? You lack understanding and common knowledge.

So the Protestant Canon has been there. Let us think. The Bible, produced by the Church, maintained by the Church and through Sin/stealing and by disobedience it was translated into English with error and without guidance produced people of the Book…the Book says…What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? by no means for to the Protestant was not given the utterance of Scripture, it was given to the Church the mystery hidden for all ages. It was stolen and through disobedience and sin translated into English. Wrong does not produce right. Shall we then say that whatever group comes along and steals from the very body of Scritpture that which it chooses to produce can say…“well it was there”…we just use this part. The Samaritans only used a certain part too you know…

I suggest you visit this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

**Why Christians can’t read Scripture **

Protestants by their own admission deny access to original Scripture and that inerrancy is only available for the original. Then how do they convince themselves or anyone else that they are reading Scripture.

ag.org/top/

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P…_inerrancy.pdf

1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
   us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
   36:2).

1. Since we do not have the original autographs, any doctrine of inerrancy is
   without value.

Protestant admit that certain translations may be filled with error and therefore do not resemble the original. This adds further doubt.

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact
copies of the original autographs still exist. This view
has led to the deplorable situation where some “translations” have only
scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures.

If no manuscript in the original language is a perfect reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect.

Protestants criticize the Bible as preserved by the Church by stating books were added and that is not true.

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew

This is not true as has been shown.

1. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

This is totally false, and has been shown to be incorrect by a few simple examples:
Protestants attack the Bible by saying that the Septuagint was not the Bible of the Church.

1. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

Protestants resort to selecively incorectly quoting Church Councils ignoring the Councils that declared the Canon.

This is why I doubt and state that Protestants cannot be reading Scripture since they deny the Authority upon which the Bible was produced. Scholarship provides only doubt. Doubt cannot lead to truth.

 

[PRmerger]

You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents.

But, Trudi, who was it that came up with this list of inspired books?

And to what did they appeal as an authority for what was inspired or not? They could not have appealed to Scripture, right?

So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.Jesus’ church conforms to His desires.

They knew via Tradition, Trudi.

That which the early Christian witnesses proclaimed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was written down.

but the Scriptures came AFTER Sacred Tradition.

He laid out His desires in Scripture.

Huh? Jesus wrote Scripture? Surely you can’t mean that!

 

[Truthstalker]

Let me respond this way.

1. I have on hand about 3 chapters of Calvin on the nature of Scripture in his Institutes. I read it once but I haven’t really digested it. There is also a chapter on the formation of the canon in Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which I read months ago. I also have a 40 page essay by B.B. Warfield on the formation of the canon, which I read several years ago. I also want to review Luther’s position. In short, I don’t feel I am ready to discuss the formation of the canon, as there are issues regarding Scripture/Church/Councils I am almost 100% guaranteed to make myself a fool on. I also want to compare the above to the Catholic Catechism. I have a charism of confusion anyway, so I hesitate to engage in something I know little of. There are others who know more who could respond better than I could. Ok, I am showing some humility here. Oops.
2. I think Jon and I have shown that Sola Scriptura is not ‘Bible Alone’, which is the core of this thread. In that sense, the thread is played out. Some of the posts are turning acidic, such as

This seems to be the way Protestants deal with thier problems, simply ignore them

which does not really make me want to continue the discussion.

1. You (plural) have brought up a great many issues. Many of these have already been debated innumerable times on this Forum. And probably will be again. At some point I hope to be ready to discuss those. But not now.

 

[PRmerger]

i have a charism of confusion anyway, so i hesitate to engage in something i know little of.

That, Trudi, was truly funny. Charism of confusion. If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”. And I’d also comment, “I disagree that you’re confused!”

 

[Nicea325]

Let me respond this way.

1. I have on hand about 3 chapters of Calvin on the nature of Scripture in his Institutes. I read it once but I haven’t really digested it. There is also a chapter on the formation of the canon in Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which I read months ago. I also have a 40 page essay by B.B. Warfield on the formation of the canon, which I read several years ago. I also want to review Luther’s position. In short, I don’t feel I am ready to discuss the formation of the canon, as there are issues regarding Scripture/Church/Councils I am almost 100% guaranteed to make myself a fool on. I also want to compare the above to the Catholic Catechism. I have a charism of confusion anyway, so I hesitate to engage in something I know little of. There are others who know more who could respond better than I could. Ok, I am showing some humility here. Oops.
2. I think Jon and I have shown that Sola Scriptura is not ‘Bible Alone’, which is the core of this thread. In that sense, the thread is played out. Some of the posts are turning acidic, such as which does not really make me want to continue the discussion.
3. You (plural) have brought up a great many issues. Many of these have already been debated innumerable times on this Forum. And probably will be again. At some point I hope to be ready to discuss those. But not now.

Truth,

But that is the whole root of the problem with SS. What Protestant,fundamentalist,etc truly represents the correct understanding?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker
Not necessarily. Please show me why that necessarily follows.That’s silly, don’t you know? You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents. It’s not necessary. So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.Jesus’ church conforms to His desires. He laid out His desires in Scripture.Again, not necessarily.Nothing. I find this amusing, actually, that you take a Scripture in which the Scripture states what the church is and turn it upside down. In that passage Scripture is saying what the church is, not the church saying what Scripture is. It flows from Scripture to the church, not the other way around. watch it

The Orthodox include all 4 of the books of the Maccabees while you include only 2. So the Protestant canon has been there. Or are you accusing someone of adding a book that was not there before?

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Does not matter? Then why exlcude the other books,if it does not matter? Apparently the canon does matter in the SS circles.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let me respond this way.

1. I have on hand about 3 chapters of Calvin on the nature of Scripture in his Institutes. I read it once but I haven’t really digested it. There is also a chapter on the formation of the canon in Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which I read months ago. I also have a 40 page essay by B.B. Warfield on the formation of the canon, which I read several years ago. I also want to review Luther’s position. In short, I don’t feel I am ready to discuss the formation of the canon, as there are issues regarding Scripture/Church/Councils I am almost 100% guaranteed to make myself a fool on. I also want to compare the above to the Catholic Catechism. ** I have a charism of confusion anyway, so I hesitate to engage in something I know little of.** There are others who know more who could respond better than I could. Ok, I am showing some humility here. Oops.
2. I think Jon and I have shown that Sola Scriptura is not ‘Bible Alone’, which is the core of this thread. In that sense, the thread is played out. Some of the posts are turning acidic, such as which does not really make me want to continue the discussion.
3. You (plural) have brought up a great many issues. Many of these have already been debated innumerable times on this Forum. And probably will be again. At some point I hope to be ready to discuss those. But not now.

Truth,

I appreciate your honesty and believe you understand that this issue is not amusing. We Catholic folk take it down right serious…

 

[dancingrain91]

Each Protestant churchsays they only follow the Scriptures but they also follow the interpretations and practices of their founders. For example, Methodists follow Wesleyan tradition. As far as I can tell, Baptists make their own rules. Or that’s how my church was.

 

[PRmerger]

Each Protestant churchsays they only follow the Scriptures but they also follow the interpretations and practices of their founders. For example, Methodists follow Wesleyan tradition. As far as I can tell, Baptists make their own rules. Or that’s how my church was.

Right.

Which makes Sola Scriptura a farce, doesn’t it?

 

[CopticChristian]

Each Protestant churchsays they only follow the Scriptures but they also follow the interpretations and practices of their founders. For example, Methodists follow Wesleyan tradition. As far as I can tell, Baptists make their own rules. Or that’s how my church was.

Dancing,

You did not speak this knowing it of the flesh, but the gift from your Father in heaven provided that insight…Amen…