Does Sola Scriptura even exist?

[AlegreFe]

Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria

Well we do agree with this one;
Thesis Three: Sola Gratia
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s
wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of
the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us
from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual
death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work.
Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves
cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced
by our unregenerated human nature.

Do these Evangelicals really think that Catholics are so stupid as to believe the opposite of what is there in “Sola Gratia?” http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/huh.gif

I would say we also agree here;
Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been
accomplished by God, it is for God’s glory and that we must
glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the
face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is
confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or
Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or
self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the
gospel.

And here too, do they think we’re that stupid to believe otherwise. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/huh.gif We give Glory to God in our Mass and we Worship only God. With that said we Worship and Adore Jesus Christ since He is God. I’m not going to worship some other “god” and certainly the Catholic Church doesn’t either. The Catholic Church also doesn’t teach about “self-esteem” or “self-fulfullment” either. I hope these people aren’t saying this about Catholics.

 

[AlegreFe]

Since these Evangelicals have this “Cambridge Declaration” then how could they say that they are Sola anything?

 

[AlegreFe]

Uh, I said I read it and that the 5 solas were ment to go together as a grouping, I didn’t say I accept the Cambridge Declaration as my authority nor did I claim the declaration was in scripture.

Then why bother reading it at all? And why do you believe what it says if you don’t accept the Cambridge Declaration?

 

[AlegreFe]

I’m not really “promoting it”, I’m trying to get you people to argue intelligentally. . IF you want to argue sola scriptura , I’m just saying argue it in the spirit it was coined in, not based on what random people say.

Oh so we’re not arguing intelligently but stupidly or irrationally? At least spell the word correctly.

Sola anything is cut 'n dry and apparently simple. Nothing to ponder over in an intelligent way. A little child with a low IQ could tell us what Sola anything means as long as they know what “sola” means.

And if you put 5 “solas” together and don’t want to separate them then they are no longer sola are they? Which proves the OP correct along with that Cambridge Declaration. Because after all that declaration is NOT in the Bible and neither are the 5 solas for that matter.

Syele:

I’m not Calvinist. Never have been.

If you’re not Calvinist then why bother reading this declaration at all?

Syele:

I’m just saying if you want to argue something, have some clue what it is/where it came from before you begin.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Duh.gif I guess I have no clue whatsoever as to what Sola anything means. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/huh.gif I must be stupid.

 

[AlegreFe]

My question is, does this exist? Is there a Church out there, or even a single person, that uses the Scriptures themselves and nothing else? More importantly, is it possible to derive doctrine from the Scriptures apart from tradition - any tradition?

Not according to this. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/huh.gif I can go on with my search but we can both be assured that your point is well taken and Sola Scriptura really doesn’t even exist. I wonder if they know this? http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/omy.gif

 

[Verita]

What happens if you are illiterate, or literate but stupid?

THis is a very important question for a protestant to answer. If a protestant believes that the Bible is necessary then what about all those people who lived before the invention of the printing press and couldn’t afford bibles? What about the millions of people throughout history (even today) who cannot read? Would God really set up a system for salvation that left those people out? Of course not.

 

[rr1213]

THis is a very important question for a protestant to answer. If a protestant believes that the Bible is necessary then what about all those people who lived before the invention of the printing press and couldn’t afford bibles? What about the millions of people throughout history (even today) who cannot read? Would God really set up a system for salvation that left those people out? Of course not.

You misunderstand the Protestant position. Most of the Catholics posting in this thread misunderstand and/or mischaracterize the Protestant position. We are not saying that you always must have a bible sitting on the desk in front of you. We are saying that the teachings of the Church must conform to the teachings contained in that bible. For those who can’t afford a bible or who are illiterate, *of course *it is sufficient for them to hear the Gospel preached to them verbally–provided that the preaching is in accord with the Scriptures. From a Protestant viewpoint, that is not the case with respect to many Catholic teachings…and you know the ones we’re talking about so we don’t need to go into that here.

As to the question as to how evangelicals can affirm the Cambridge Declaration and still be sola scriptura…is this an honest question or an absurd attempt at ridicule? In any event, in the viewpoint of the authors of that Declaration the statements contained therein faithfully reflect the teachings of scripture and, therefore, are in accord with the concept of sola scriptura. Frankly, the same is true for the Augsburg Confession and the Westminster Confession, two much more important and much earlier Protestant confessions of faith. Or for the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, both of which are professed by most Protestants. Do you, as Catholics, believe that those creeds ***don’t ***faithfully reflect the teachings of scripture?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I really don’t care who has and has not changed their faith. I did read the so-called Cambridge Declaration and do understand the Five Solas as many Protestant groups propose them.

As a former long time Protestant and Evangelical Pastor in the United Methodist Church I can tell you that so long as Protestantism relies upon the Church while both ignoring its authority and attacking it all the Declarations in the world make no sense.

All the various solas do is insist upon the value of things that address matters all about the truth but never really touch the truth itself. Jesus did not come to create more “Whited Sepulchres” but to reestablish His Kingdom upon the earth. By focusing upon the Solas all these “evangelical leaders” are doing is decorating caskets.

Sola Scriptura is no more real than are any of the other solas. Christ established a Church that would smash the gates of hell. He did not establish a series of academic proclamations.

As the saying goes: “One can know all about Christ and still not know Him.” I think the Protestant Academics have rather proven that.

CDL

 

[Verita]

You misunderstand the Protestant position. Most of the Catholics posting in this thread misunderstand and/or mischaracterize the Protestant position. We are not saying that you always must have a bible sitting on the desk in front of you. We are saying that the teachings of the Church must conform to the teachings contained in that bible. For those who can’t afford a bible or who are illiterate, *of course *it is sufficient for them to hear the Gospel preached to them verbally–provided that the preaching is in accord with the Scriptures. From a Protestant viewpoint, that is not the case with respect to many Catholic teachings…and you know the ones we’re talking about so we don’t need to go into that here.

I don’t misunderstand anything. You’ll notice I said “If a protestant believes the Bible is necessary”. I was specifically addressing those types of protestants and believe me they exist. I was once one. There are many who completely separate themselves from any sort of authority and tradition and maintain that the only way to have knowledge of salvation is from the Bible. If you do not believe that then I am not addressing you. Those who do believe it, have many serious things to answer including what I explained above.

 

[simbagizmo]

Sure thing.

Sacred Tradition incorpororates the entire body of teaching, written and oral as collected by those of authority who have a God given authority to teach, teachings which were transmitted from the earliest apostolic days and continue to bind the conscience to this day.

There’s nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that this will be lost. And there’s plenty more in the Scriptures to indicate this God given teaching authority is necessary for a clear understanding of God’s will (and will continue by the Holy Spirit) than anything I’ve seen presented to indicate that the Scriptures alone contain the fullness of God’s revelation.

The Scriptures alone without a solid teaching authority as governed by the Holy Spirit are like a lightbulb without electricity-- potentially usefull, but not really effective until used properly.

Is there a different message of salvation through Holy Tradition than found in Holy Scripture, or is Holy Tradition the ability to comprehend what is written in Holy Scripture via the Holy Spirit?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Is there a different message of salvation through Holy Tradition than found in Holy Scripture…

No.

simbagizmo:

…or is Holy Tradition the ability to comprehend what is written in Holy Scripture via the Holy Spirit?

The second one is closer to my own definition, but it’s not an either/or proposition as you’ve framed it.

I believe that Sacred Tradition can be understood from the Sacred Scripture, provided an adequate teacher is in place to provide the proper exegesis. But we do need the Scripture too.

In order for Catholicism to teach in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church requires tradition scripture, and the magisterium in order to be complete.

If she is lacking in any of these areas, then she is not teaching the fullness of truth as the Holy Spirit has revealed it. More importantly, however, the Living Witness of the Church adheres to 2 Corinthians 3:3 which says…

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

When God speaks through someone who he has truly called to preach as enabled by the Holy Spirit, the Church herself acts as a living extension of the Sacred Scriptures.

The Church’s authority is not limited to pen & ink or tablets of stone-- the Spirit of the living God has written on the tablets of our human hearts. As such, the Church, being a letter from Christ, is a Living Witness of what the Scriptures testify to, a visible sign from the invisible God that he is alive and well in the world even unto today.

 

[BobCatholic]

Sola scriptura (“Bible only”) cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?
2. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
3. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[simbagizmo]

I believe that Sacred Tradition can be understood from the Sacred Scripture, provided an adequate teacher is in place to provide the proper exegesis. But we do need the Scripture too.

Is Sacred Tradition contained inside the Sacred Scripture? Meaning that all the messages for salvation given in Sacred Tradition are contained in Sacred Scripture?

In order for Catholicism to teach in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church requires tradition scripture, and the magisterium in order to be complete.

I understand that Catholics believe that the full truth is contained in the combination of Scripture and Tradition. We both understand Scripture being the Bible, but from what you have written above, is Tradition then the Teaching office of the Catholic Church?

 

[AlegreFe]

Is there a different message of salvation through Holy Tradition than found in Holy Scripture,

Not at all.

or is Holy Tradition the ability to comprehend what is written in Holy Scripture via the Holy Spirit?

Sacred Tradition is the teachings of the Word of God that has been transmitted in a different format than that of Sacred Scriptures in letter/scroll form.

You also have to keep in mind that Sacred Scripture was not always a book as we have it today. Since Sacred Tradition is the Word of God you will find it in Sacred Scripture, just not clearly stated in so many words. That is why we need a teaching authority to teach us so that we “get to know” the Word of God. We all want to get to know Jesus right? And what better way than with the teaching authority that Jesus Himself sent out for us. You will find that authority in the Catholic Church.

If we reject Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church then we reject Jesus and therefore reject the one who sent Him. Tradition is how Jesus sent out His disciples whom He appointed to pass on the His teachings which the 12 original Apostles also had. Tradition, after all, just means the passing on of practices and beliefs. And unless you get those practices and beliefs from the Apostles who got them straight from Jesus then you don’t have Sacred Tradition, you just have man-made tradition.

We have a three legged stool so that we won’t fall.

1. 
   *]Sacred Scripture
   *]Sacred Tradition
   *]Magisterial Teaching - Magisterium of the Catholic Church
   
   Come Holy Spirit
   Open our hearts
   Enlighten our minds
   ---- — ---- ----- –
   
   Lk 9:1-6 (NIV)
   1 When Jesus had called the Twelve
   together, he gave them power and
   authority to drive out all demons
   and to cure diseases,
   2 and he sent them out to preach the
   kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
   3 He told them: "Take nothing for the
   journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no
   money, no extra tunic.
   4 Whatever house you enter, stay there
   until you leave that town.
   5 If people do not welcome you, shake
   the dust off your feet when you leave
   their town, as a testimony against them."
   6 So they set out and went from village
   to village,
   preaching the gospel and healing
   people everywhere.
   
   Lk 10:1-3, 16 (NIV)
   1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-
   two others and sent them two by two
   ahead of him to every town and place where
   he was about to go.
   2 He told them, "The harvest is plentiful,
   but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of
   the harvest, therefore, to send out workers
   into his harvest field.
   3 Go! I am sending you out like lambs
   among wolves.
   16 "He who listens to you listens to
   me; he who rejects you rejects me;
   but he who rejects me rejects him
   who sent me."

 

[AlegreFe]

With so many churches out there you can’t think that the Holy Spirit is somewhat confused or that He changes in anyway whatsoever. The Holy Spirit only has one thing to spread and that is the Word that is Jesus Christ. The Word is not revealed in the form of traditions that come from man.

I know you all believe that the Holy Spirit led Moses and the Israelites in the dessert right? There wasn’t small groups of people that wondered off on their own. No, they stayed together with the whole crowd because they knew that the Spirit of God was leading Moses and Aaron. Moses was the one to whom the Spirit of God was talking. God always told Moses to tell the people this and that. The people knew this and they knew that they wouldn’t hear what the Spirit of God had to say unless they stayed with Moses. Most didn’t like it but they knew the only way to get to the Promised Land was to stay with Moses because they knew the Spirit of God was leading him.

So too the Spirit of God is leading the Church. So you have the Fullness of Truth right here in the Catholic Church. You have the full means of salvation right here in the Catholic Church. So why wonder off into unknown desert territory when you can stay with Moses and get to the Promised Land?

Peace and God bless.

 

[AlegreFe]

We are saying that the teachings of the Church must conform to the teachings contained in that bible.

The teachings of the Church do conform to the Scriptures.

rr1213:

For those who can’t afford a bible or who are illiterate, *of course *it is sufficient for them to hear the Gospel preached to them verbally–provided that the preaching is in accord with the Scriptures

They most certainly are in accord with the Scriptures. You just can’t see it because God has not allowed that for you yet. But I’m praying for that.

rr1213:

As to the question as to how evangelicals can affirm the Cambridge Declaration and still be sola scriptura…is this an honest question or an absurd attempt at ridicule?

For me and I believe for a lot of Catholics, it is a legitimate question. I say this because you think our CCC is non-Scriptual. So why wouldn’t we think the same thing? I can see however, that what that document says is just what you believe that comes out of Scripture. My question would then be, if that’s the case then why claim Sola Scriptura?

Since Catholics believe the CCC comes out of and conforms to Scripture we do NOT claim Sola Scriptura. So why don’t you if you have this “other” document that states your beliefs?

rr1213:

In any event, in the viewpoint of the authors of that Declaration the statements contained therein faithfully reflect the teachings of scripture and, therefore, are in accord with the concept of sola scriptura. Frankly, the same is true for the Augsburg Confession and the Westminster Confession, two much more important and much earlier Protestant confessions of faith. Or for the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, both of which are professed by most Protestants. Do you, as Catholics, believe that those creeds don’t faithfully reflect the teachings of scripture?

When it comes to the Nicene and the Apostles creed, I do believe that they faithfully reflect the teachings of Scripture.

As far as the Protestant “declarations” and “confessions” no I cannot say that they FULLY conform to Scripture. I say “fully” because I’ve read some of them and I do agree with some of what they have to say but not all.

But if you believe these documents do conform to Scripture then why do you claim Sola Scriptura? And how can you even say that it is not true for us in our Catechism of the Catholic Church? That just really gets me. That is a weak point for me as I tend to get angry and upset about why any Protestant would think that the CCC is “extra-biblical” in a sense that is totally against Sacred Scripture.
So I have to pray that God does not allow me to fall into my anger.

Peace and God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

The teachings of the Church do conform to the Scriptures.

It’s actually better to say that the Scriptures conform to the teachings of the Church, since the teachings of the Church came first, and then, later, the Scriptures were formed, to help with the transmission of Church teachings (Holy Tradition) to the whole world.

Scripture is a sub-set of the Church’s Holy Tradition. The context, ultimately, of the Scriptures (beyond such considerations as the flow of the text itself, the culture in which it was written, etc. - also very important, of course) is the Catholic Mass - outside of that context, they are easily misunderstood.

First came Jesus. He gave His teaching orally to the Apostles - at this point, there was nothing written down. The Apostles were not following Jesus around, taking notes - Jesus (unlike Jeremiah, for example) had no official scribe.

Jesus was not reading aloud from the Gospel of Matthew, nor indeed from any kind of written notes at all, when He gave the Sermon on the Mount.

Then came the Apostles, who gave Christ’s teachings (aka the Holy Tradition) to the next generations (the Early Fathers of the Church).

When they realized that they were not going to live to see the Second Coming, they appointed successors to their Apostolic offices - this line of succession is unbroken in the Catholic Church.

They also wrote some things down - some (but not all) of these things were read out in the Churches and were useful for instruction, exhortation, and enlightenment - these particular writings eventually became our New Testament. The canon (list of table of contents) of the New Testament was closed with a set canon of 27 Apostolic books in about 400-405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I. At that time, he also emphasized the use of the Alexandrian canon of the Old Testament (a set list of 46 books) in the Church.

 

[rr1213]

But if you believe these documents do conform to Scripture then why do you claim Sola Scriptura? And how can you even say that it is not true for us in our Catechism of the Catholic Church? That just really gets me. That is a weak point for me as I tend to get angry and upset about why any Protestant would think that the CCC is “extra-biblical” in a sense that is totally against Sacred Scripture.

The Westminister Confession, or the Augsburg Confession, or any other confession is useful only to the extent that it correctly espouses teachings and doctrine that are in accord with Scripture. No Protestant that I know would place those documents above Scripture, although they may believe that the confessions accurately set forth Scriptural doctrine. Frankly, it is no different from the CCC. I have a copy, it is a fine piece of work, it is obviously based on Scripture to a large extent. I think most Protestants, if they ever read the CCC, would find that they agree with 90% of it. (Of course, the other 10% covers some pretty significant differences…) I think that the CCC is valuable, to the extent that it correctly espouses Scriptural teachings. Where it departs from those teachings, then it loses value other than to explain what the Catholic viewpoint is on that particular subject.

I think a key difference between Catholics and Protestants is their respective reliance on these confessions or catechisms. There are no doubt exceptions, but most Protestants today would cite to the Bible over a Confession to make an authoritative theological point. In contrast, lots of Catholics (at least on these forums, which may not be typical) are just as likely to cite to the CCC as to the Scripture to make an authoritative theological point.

 

[Micki]

Sola Scriptura was ment to be included in an argument that contradicts “sola” anyhow… there were 5 solas (How can there be only one if there are 5?) The 5 were not ment to be considered apart from one another. The word sola was meaning “This” without “that”, not “this” without “anything else ever”.

I thought “sola” means “solo” meaning by itself. I guess I was really wrong!!

Micki

 

[AlegreFe]

Syele;1728619:

Sola Scriptura was ment to be included in an argument that contradicts “sola” anyhow… there were 5 solas (How can there be only one if there are 5?) The 5 were not ment to be considered apart from one another. The word sola was meaning “This” without “that”, not “this” without “anything else ever”.

I thought “sola” means “solo” meaning by itself. I guess I was really wrong!!
Micki

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Just so you know Syele, Micki is being facetious as we certainly know that “sola” means “alone” with nothing else.