Does Sola Scriptura need to state as such?

[porthos11]

I agree to a large extent with this but not entirely. I agree that the fallicy of using a book to prove a book means that we must also accept the Koran and the BOM as inspired as they both say they are…However…
Regardless of what we choose to use as “proof” (internal text, the individual guidance of the Spirit, the church) the ultimate foundation of our acceptance is “faith”. Faith in God and His promises.

Too often I see these conversations peter out into endless tit-for-tat proof texting that leads nowhere. Instead each side digs in their heels and stops listening to the other.
So at some point, for the sake of Christian charity and in order to move conversation forward in a meaningful way, we may need to concede our agreement on the inspiration of Scripture and move on to what Scripture actually says in toto and not just in the “proof texts” pulled by both sides.
The simple fact is that there is far greater evidence in the Bible for a visible, doctrinally unified, and authoritative Church (ekklesia) than there is for an invisible, doctrinally divergent, private interpretation church…

Peace
James

Unfortunately, conceding inspiration and then using the Bible to prove the Church which gave us the Bible is no better than the Protestant’s argument of proving Scripture with Scripture. Such an argument only puts us in a worse position logically because we then use double circular reasoning: How to you know the Bible is inspired? Because the Church says so. Why do you believe the Church? Because the Bible says so. That’s just as bad if not worse than the Protestant reasoning.

Have the Protestant defend his position first (he makes the assertion, he has the burden of proof. That’s debating 101); that way he can more clearly see that Sola Scriptura is unsustainable logically because he cannot defend it without relying on an external authority. He will undoubtedly refuse to recognize the Catholic Church as that authority, so he can only either fall back on Scripture (and circular reasoning) or his own opinion (“I believe Scripture is inspired”) or that of his pastor or one of the Protestant confessions. But none of those are Scripture, and so for him to accept Scripture, he needs to rely on a Tradition, that being, the 66 books of the Bible are inspired. Since that’s a point of dogma for them, and that itself nowhere in Scripture, then by that alone, Sola Scriptura is indefensible.

 

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Something that I would like to say for the benefit of our Bretheren who are defending “Sola Scriptura”.

We as Catholics Love Scripture. It is the most direct and important resource and link that we have to Christ in written form. It is a truly foundational “bedrock” and vital part of our our faith.

yes and the Catholic acceptance of the mystical sense is far more consistent with the way spiirital protestants and people in general read the Bible: looking for what God is saying now through the literal statements of Scripture

in other words, because we don’t hold to the subjectivism principle of Sola Scriptura, we are allowed to be much more free in our reading of Scripture. it is a paradox

 

[Casotlga]

Will someone please give me a straight answer.
Does the RCC believe the Douay version of the bible is the inspired word of God, factual and a accurate, free from errors and contradictions? Yes or no???

 

[guanophore]

Will someone please give me a straight answer.
Does the RCC believe the Douay version of the bible is the inspired word of God, factual and a accurate, free from errors and contradictions? Yes or no???

No. The Church teaches that the original manuscripts, none of which now exist, meet those criteria.

 

[RSD]

Will someone please give me a straight answer.
Does the RCC believe the Douay version of the bible is the inspired word of God, factual and a accurate, free from errors and contradictions? Yes or no???

I think that the problem with simply giving you a yes/no answer is that it is not totally clear that we mean the same thing. For instance, when Pilate asked Jesus “Are you the King of the Jews?” neither a “yes” or “no” answer would have been the truth because Pilate’s notion of kingship did not include Jesus notion of Kingship.

So yes, we believe that the Douay version of the Bible is the inspired word of God, factual and accurate, as long as we understand that our interpretation is guided (just as the translation itself was guided) by God speaking through His church, the Holy Father, and the bishops.

Are you a parent? Or do you remember being a child? Was there ever a time when as a child your parents told you to do something, or not do something which you were able to obey exactly as they said, and still totally disobey the intent? Or was there ever a time when through an honest misunderstanding you did what you thought they meant, and it was totally the wrong thing? Or substitute your child for you, in the above, and you for your parents. If the words of the parents had been written, would that have totally eliminated the possibility of misunderstanding?

Sometimes I think that the story of the Tower of Babel is not mainly about the proliferation of different languages, but about how hard it is for people to understand language at all. We definitely need several layers of communication to get really important messages.

 

[JRKH]

Will someone please give me a straight answer.
Does the RCC believe the Douay version of the bible is the inspired word of God, factual and a accurate, free from errors and contradictions? Yes or no???

Look in the front of your bible for the terms “imprimatur” and “nihil obstat” followed by the names of priests.
If your bible has these marks then it was reviewed by the Catholic Church and found free of error and was approved for printing.
My NAB version carries three seperate approvals, one for text, one for dictionary and appendixes and one for Catholic commentary.

Peace
James

 

[mackbrislawn]

Will someone please give me a straight answer.
Does the RCC believe the Douay version of the bible is the inspired word of God, factual and a accurate, free from errors and contradictions? Yes or no???

No.

No copy nor translation is inspired, as such. Only the original, autograph manuscripts are considered inspired and hence free from error. The original manuscripts no longer exist; they were lost early on. Free of contradictions? That is a matter of opinion.

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not meant as guarantees of inspiration.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Unfortunately, conceding inspiration and then using the Bible to prove the Church which gave us the Bible is no better than the Protestant’s argument of proving Scripture with Scripture. Such an argument only puts us in a worse position logically because we then use double circular reasoning: How to you know the Bible is inspired? Because the Church says so. Why do you believe the Church? Because the Bible says so. That’s just as bad if not worse than the Protestant reasoning.

Have the Protestant defend his position first (he makes the assertion, he has the burden of proof. That’s debating 101); that way he can more clearly see that Sola Scriptura is unsustainable logically because he cannot defend it without relying on an external authority. He will undoubtedly refuse to recognize the Catholic Church as that authority, so he can only either fall back on Scripture (and circular reasoning) or his own opinion (“I believe Scripture is inspired”) or that of his pastor or one of the Protestant confessions. But none of those are Scripture, and so for him to accept Scripture, he needs to rely on a Tradition, that being, the 66 books of the Bible are inspired. Since that’s a point of dogma for them, and that itself nowhere in Scripture, then by that alone, Sola Scriptura is indefensible.

Yes, for the Catholic the starting point is the Church. The Catholic believes scripture is inspired because the Church teaches so. The Church does not depend for its existence on scripture. Scripture derives from the Church.

However, for the Protestant, it is the other way around. He starts with scripture, and from it derives the church. In Catholic thinking, that is totally illogical. The Protestant rejects the Church as false, but then turns around and tries to recreate the true religion from the holy book of a false religion!

 

[Casotlga]

Quote
So yes, we believe that the Douay version of the Bible is the inspired word of God, factual and accurate, as long as we understand that our interpretation is guided (just as the translation itself was guided) by God speaking through His church, the Holy Father, and the bishops.

So, are all of the “interpretations of the bible” , by all, that contain this, “nihil obstat and imprimatur” to be trusted as accurate and factual?
Quote
Fortunatly, truth is not based upon how you “feel”. Jesus does NOT give liberty to believe and do as we wish. We are to do and believe as He commands us, no more, no less.

guanophore, Please tell me, who does Jesus stop someone from doing and believing exactly as he wishes…until harvest time? And how does He stop such a one?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Quote
So yes, we believe that the Douay version of the Bible is the inspired word of God, factual and accurate, as long as we understand that our interpretation is guided (just as the translation itself was guided) by God speaking through His church, the Holy Father, and the bishops.

So, are all of the “interpretations of the bible” , by all, that contain this, “nihil obstat and imprimatur” to be trusted as accurate and factual?
Quote
Fortunatly, truth is not based upon how you “feel”. Jesus does NOT give liberty to believe and do as we wish. We are to do and believe as He commands us, no more, no less.

guanophore, Please tell me, who does Jesus stop someone from doing and believing exactly as he wishes…until harvest time? And how does He stop such a one?

Of course God does not stop someone from doing and believing exactly as he wishes. We have free will. But having free will is not the same thing as having liberty to act and believe as we wish. Jesus needs us to know the truth, not to worship nor practice falsehoods nor man-made doctrines.

 

[aridite]

Point #6) The fact that there is wide discrepancy among Sola Scriptura using Protestants concerning such topics as Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, the necessity of water Baptism, homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, what is and is not a sacrament, etc. is pretty well known. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention does not allow women pastors, but non-denominational churches do. The Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists believe in the Real Presence in terms of their Communion, but other Protestants don’t. Here is a link to a debate between Protestants about the necessity of Baptism:
youtube.com/watch?v=U56SIZL_URc

Another video connecting the variety of Protestant doctrines with the futility of basing them on SS:

youtube.com/watch?v=wwZHAAk5Tx0