Does Sola Scriptura need to state as such?

[guanophore]

Wouldn’t those writings be copied and passed on so other Churches could have access to those Scriptures? In fact, that is exactly what happened! And, believe it or not, nobody waited until the 4th century to start making copies!

No, of course they did not wait! They received the Apostolic instructions with eagerness, and passed the letters around as they were commanded. I fail to see how this supports the theory of SS.

What you have done is demonstrate the critical importance of Scripture in the early Church. This is a Catholic point of view. It does not support SS.

They seem to be missing the point – we all agree (for the most part, I’m sure) that Scripture is a rule of faith.  The Scripture testifies that it is “God-breathed”.  Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else (like Tradition) is equal to Scripture?

No, I don’t think anyone here misses this point. We just recognize that it does not equate to SS.

In answer to your question about trust, I think it boils down to a lack of trust in God not to accept His promises about the Church. I urge you to look back at the history of the Reformation, so you can see why SS was developed. It is all about lack of trust.

JRKH has pointed out that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church to teach Scripture. Anyone who thinks that it’s just him, his Bible and Jesus doesn’t understand Sola Scriptura.

Well, there are a great many Protestants that do think this, one of the influences of SS. The other problem is that the early Church did not just “teach scripture” but a lifestyle that was demonstrated and enacted (not reduced to writing). This is as much a part of the equpping of the saints as teaching Scripture. Other posters on this thread have already given good examples of non-scriptural sources of development in holiness.

However, that does not mean that the congregation has to just accept whatever the pastor tells them.  They have the right (and responsibility) to check what they are being taught against Scriptures to be sure heresies don’t creep in (again, look at the Bereans and how they searched the Scriptures daily to verify what Paul was teaching).

The main difference between Bible Christians today and the Bereans is that the Bereans were more "noble’. What made them “more noble” was that they received the Apostolic instruction with eagerness. Moderns don’t practice this kind of nobility - rejecting the Apostolic instruction, they read the Scriptures in isolation from it, arrriving at many divergent understandings of what it means.

 I would point out that God does not contradict Himself, so He is in full agreement with what He has inspired in the Scriptures.

This is a strange comment. Is there some reason you believe Catholics would think differently? We also recognize that the unwritten Word of God must be in complete harmony with the Written word, which is why there is no contradiction between the Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scriptures.

Ad far as John 21:25 goes, I fail to see how this is relevant to Sola Scriptura.  Just because Jesus said and did more than we have recorded, doesn’t mean the Scriptures are lacking anything that we need (or do you think God was mistaken when he inspired Paul to write 2 Tim 3:14-17?).

It is clear that no attempt to include everything was ever made.

No, I don’t think God is mistaken, I think YOU are! You have twisted this Scripture into something it does not say. Again, who is responsible for equipping the saints for the work of the ministry?

The thing to remember is that what was recorded is what’s important.

You are creating a straw man. Catholics believe what is recorded in the Bible is important.

However, if you want to make an argument from John 21:25, please give us a single word, phrase or act performed by Jesus that we do not have recorded in Scripture (be prepared to prove the accuracy of your claim).

Ok, the fact that the Sacred Writings were never to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

If you cannot produce such a word, phrase or act, then how is this a relevant argument against Sola Scriptura?

Sacred Tradition has more to do with HOW the scripture is to be understood. It complements what is written by allowing us to read it from the point of view of those who wrote it.

  As far as my use of “and” in place of “or”, first of all, I was not quoting the Scriptures, but making a point about the traditions Paul had taught.  What did Paul teach?  Traditions.  How did he teach them?  Orally and by letter.  How could a person learn these traditions?  Orally (directly from Paul), or by reading what he had written.  Since we no longer have Paul around to teach us directly, we can still learn the traditions he taught by reading his letters.

You seem to have your heart set on denying/eliminating the part of Paul’s teaching that was not included in the letter. Why do you think this might be important for you?

 Perhaps if I had used “were” instead of “are” in the sentence, that may have reduced the confusion.

You have made an incorrect and unsupportable assumption. Not all of what the Apostles did and taught is contained in the Scriptures. SS makes the assumption that it is.

 

[JRKH]

Another question, How is one to view the Bible, is it to be taken for the holy inspired word of God?

You ask good questions. Questions that we all need to ask and get answers to.
The bible canon was not originally codified to be the “be all end all” instruction book. The reason for it’s compilattion was to provide a common set of books to be used in the liturgy across the universal church. Prior to the canonization process various regions used differing texts, some quite common and fairly “universal” while others were much less common.
So the Church, through councils of bishops and on several occasions and locations and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, met and determined the common canon of texts.
Based on this it is important to note two things.
Neither of the Ancient Churches - East or West - has ever taught that the bible is somehow seperate from the Church. Both see and teach the Bible texts from within the Church that created them.
At the time that the 73 book canon was settled in the western Church, the east was using a somewhat larger canon and yet this difference in the canonical books was not seen as something divisive. This is because the canon was seen as something that was a part of The Church and not seperate from or superior to it.
The seperation of the Bible from the Church that compiled it did not occur for another 1100 years.

Is the Bible infallible, to be taken literally, at face value?

Like many, you are confusnig “infallible” with "inerrant’. The Bible texts are “innerrant”, that is they do not contain error. Fallibility (comes from ability to fail) is something the reader brings to the reading.
That said, much of the Bible can be taken at face value and even literally. However that does not mean that the reader cannot be misled by what they read there. This is especially true if the reader starts from a flawed premise such as sola scriptura.

If sola scriptura isn’t valid, what is to be added?
And by whom?
Lets avoid translation controversy and refer only to the Douay version.

Let me ask your same question but in a different way…
If Sola Scriptura is valid, then why are there so many different and conflicting doctrines promulgated all based on, and “provable” in Scripture?

You asked in your previous post about how we are to know what is and is not inspired - well how are we to know which of the various “doctrines” taught by the various protestant denominations are the correct understandnings of the inerrant Scripture?

Believe it or not, the answer to this dilema lies in The NT itself when properly read without the made made tradtion of “Sola Scriptura” and “private interpretation”

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

Didn’t that come from the Scriptures? The same source that Paul said was “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Who is responsible for these duties, Cachonga?

Are you asserting that the Scriptures engage in these duties?

I will quickly state that I am a former Roman Catholic, and (thanks in large part to my brother and Tim Staples) am now a Reformed Baptist. BTW - the brother I am referring to is staunchly Roman Catholic and is constantly trying to bring me back to Rome.

What brings you here, Cachonga? Can you get your brother to come too?

 

[Casotlga]

This is somewhat confusing, it would be much simpler if we could post directly beneath the person asking questions. Anyone know the moderator well enough to suggest it?
The questions asked of me…
One cannot prove SS anymore than one can prove the existence of God to an atheist. It takes faith. Heb 11:1
My personal conclusion;
II Tim 3:16, All scripture is inspired by God…
So what is all scripture?
My faith is such that I believe that God Almighty, that loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son so that we might have life and have it more abundantly, also did not leave us without a written record, code of conduct, requirement list and the same one that has given us all things that pertain to life and Godliness has left us with all that is necessary. Genesis to Revelation. I prefer the KJV, however I don’t believe it is the only translation that is relevant, there are mistakes in it as well.
What am I protesting??? If I believe kneeling in prayer as does the RCC, does that make me RCC?? Not much. If what we believe coincides with someone else, that does not mean we are one of them, does it? I differ as much or more with most Protestants as I do the RCC. However I feel Jesus gives liberty to believe and do exactly as we wish… until harvest time. Matt 7:22-23
Jesus never wrote a single word that has been preserved to our day, nevertheless He is the Word! John 1:1-14
Can anyone tell what is the official position of the RCC on the bible? Is the bible believable? Is it inspired? Is the bible God’s word? Can we trust it? I do, completely.

Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?”
Why indeed?

 

[JRKH]

This is somewhat confusing, it would be much simpler if we could post directly beneath the person asking questions. Anyone know the moderator well enough to suggest it?

Yes it can get tricky sometimes when there is more thatn one person responding to you. Personally I try to use the quote feature when I can.

The questions asked of me…
One cannot prove SS anymore than one can prove the existence of God to an atheist. It takes faith. Heb 11:1
My personal conclusion;
II Tim 3:16, All scripture is inspired by God…
So what is all scripture?

This is a good question. If I may…
Consider that the letter Paul wrote was to Timothy, a Bishop of a Greek community. In addition remember that St Paul was from Tarsus, another greek community. To these Greek speaking Jews and gentile converts, “All Scripture” would have meant the Septuigent.

My faith is such that I believe that God Almighty, that loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son so that we might have life and have it more abundantly, also did not leave us without a written record, code of conduct, requirement list and the same one that has given us all things that pertain to life and Godliness has left us with all that is necessary. Genesis to Revelation. I prefer the KJV, however I don’t believe it is the only translation that is relevant, there are mistakes in it as well.

I don’t see that anything you say above is particularly “non-catholic”. The only thing I would say that you are lacking is an understanding of how God chose to transmit this “written record” and how God, and Christ, organized the protection of the Truths contained in the wriiten record.
That mechanism established recorded and demonstarted in the Bible itself.

**What am I protesting??? If I believe kneeling in prayer as does the RCC, does that make me RCC?? Not much. If what we believe coincides with someone else, that does not mean we are one of them, does it? I differ as much or more with most Protestants as I do the RCC. However I feel Jesus gives liberty to believe and do exactly as we wish… until harvest time. Matt 7:22-23 **
Perhaps you mean this differently, but I find you comment her to be very dangerous. Yes you are at liberty to do exactly as you wish…You are likewise free to choose hell over heaven. Christ tells us that the path to life is a narrow one and few will find it. Read Mt Ch 5,6,7 and see how much “liberty to beleive and do exactly as we wich” is contained in them.

Jesus never wrote a single word that has been preserved to our day, nevertheless He is the Word! John 1:1-14

Absolutely correct. What he did was to establish a Church with authority to bind and loose…Bind and loose what?..Bind and loose “whatever”. It is that Church, through the action of the original leaders and their duly appounted successors, the bishops, who have written, preserved, codified, copied, promulgated, protected, defended and taught from the texts included in the Holy Bible as well as the many ancient documents (small “s” scripture) commonly refered to as the wrtings of the ECF’s.
Christ is our head. It is He who appointed the earthly Church to be a blessing to those of His kingdom. By obeying The Church we obey Christ. The two things are not seperate,

Can anyone tell what is the official position of the RCC on the bible? Is the bible believable? Is it inspired? Is the bible God’s word? Can we trust it? I do, completely.

Happy to oblige.
You will find the Church’s official teaching ably summarized HERE in the Catholic Church catechism.
Additionally If you look at the index HERE, under “Chapter Two, God Comes To Meet Man” you can read about about Tradition and the transmission of Divine revelation.
Much of this is distilled from a more extensive document called Dei Verbum, or “God’s Word”. If you’d like a link to that please ask.

Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?”
Why indeed?

Why indeed…

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

Nice try Sonny but ummm, if those verses were so perspicacious why do we have 30,000plus Protestant denominations almost none of whom, if any, profess Mary’s perpetual virginity.

BTW The first Protestant Martin Luther never gave up that particular doctrine.

Actually, he did. At the end of his life he deeply regretted what he had done, because he had already seen the divisive effects of the SS doctrine. He continued to embrace the majority of the Aposotlic Sacred Tradition, and saw it beginning to get lost by those who separated themselves from it by interpreting scripture in a vaccuum.

 

[guanophore]

Furthermore, Jews have been prayerfully reading Psalm 119 for approximately 3000 years. How do you account for the fact that the “work of God” never led them to formulate the teaching of Sola Scriptura? Moreover, literally billions of Catholics and Orthodox Christians have been prayerfully reading Psalm 119 for 2000 years, and yet the “work of God” did not led them to formulating Sola Scriptura either.

This is a very good point, and one of the best refutations. How was God so weak or disinterested in His Church that He could not find even ONE faithful person to whom He could reveal this doctrine?

Of course, the SS’s say that Jesus and the Apostles were SS.

 

[porthos11]

This is somewhat confusing, it would be much simpler if we could post directly beneath the person asking questions. Anyone know the moderator well enough to suggest it?
The questions asked of me…
One cannot prove SS anymore than one can prove the existence of God to an atheist. It takes faith. Heb 11:1
My personal conclusion;
II Tim 3:16, All scripture is inspired by God…
So what is all scripture?
My faith is such that I believe that God Almighty, that loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son so that we might have life and have it more abundantly, also did not leave us without a written record, code of conduct, requirement list and the same one that has given us all things that pertain to life and Godliness has left us with all that is necessary. Genesis to Revelation. I prefer the KJV, however I don’t believe it is the only translation that is relevant, there are mistakes in it as well.
What am I protesting??? If I believe kneeling in prayer as does the RCC, does that make me RCC?? Not much. If what we believe coincides with someone else, that does not mean we are one of them, does it? I differ as much or more with most Protestants as I do the RCC. However I feel Jesus gives liberty to believe and do exactly as we wish… until harvest time. Matt 7:22-23
Jesus never wrote a single word that has been preserved to our day, nevertheless He is the Word! John 1:1-14
Can anyone tell what is the official position of the RCC on the bible? Is the bible believable? Is it inspired? Is the bible God’s word? Can we trust it? I do, completely.

Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?”
Why indeed?

Indeed, what is “all scripture?” You have still provided no proof that the Bible is inspired. The “Official RCC Position” should be of no relevance to you since you don’t accept the Catholic Church’s authority, so that point is moot. So for you and others who advocate Sola Scriptura need to provide proof that the Bible is inspired.

What is that proof?

 

[porthos11]

This is somewhat confusing, it would be much simpler if we could post directly beneath the person asking questions. Anyone know the moderator well enough to suggest it?
The questions asked of me…
One cannot prove SS anymore than one can prove the existence of God to an atheist.

Then your argument falls apart on the following grounds:

You therefore simply take on faith that the 66 Biblical books are inspired. That by itself is already a Tradition, because nowhere in the Bible does it list the 66 inspired books. Therefore in itself, from your statement, you need to accept an extrabiblical dogma (the Biblical canon) to support Sola Scriptura. This is a contradiction in and of itself, and shows that Sola Scriptura is contrary to reason.

My personal conclusion;
II Tim 3:16, All scripture is inspired by God…
So what is all scripture?

This is what you need to prove. You claim 66 inspired books, we claim 73. The Mormons have an additional book altogether, and the Muslims have their own claims.

You just stated that you take it on faith that the 66 books of the Bible are inspired, but you have no basis for this whatsoever. You therefore have only your own authority to rely on, and therefore have to subscribe to a Tradition to accept the Biblical books’ as inspired. This alone shows that you cannot subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Actually, he did. At the end of his life he deeply regretted what he had done, because he had already seen the divisive effects of the SS doctrine. He continued to embrace the majority of the Aposotlic Sacred Tradition, and saw it beginning to get lost by those who separated themselves from it by interpreting scripture in a vaccuum.

My mistake Guano…I thought he maintained it until death I know he held it long after he was excommunicated…

 

[Ignatius]

How about Matt 4:4, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. .

The key term here is the mouth of God, it says nothing about written. Scripture is writing! Scripture Alone means only written, rejecting the word of God passed down by word of mouth. Since Jesus didn’t write down anything, everything He said was all passed on by word of mouth for generations while the Church grew by leaps and bounds. They did not have any New Testament Scripture at this time.

Sola Scriptura also had the following deficiencies:
There is no consensus of what Sola Scriptura means even among post reformation Churches. All of the post reformation churches are supposed to be using Sola Scriptura and yet they reach conflicting conclusions.

Sola Scriptura can’t be rationally applied because:

• It isn’t clearly defined
• The definition changes over time
• The definition changes from one person to the next

 

[Ignatius]

Here are a few more problems with the false, man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

• Jesus did not hand the New Testament to his followers and say “read and heed” He never wrote a line of scripture, and with the exception of Revelation, never commanded anyone else to do so either.
• When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, He did not drop the New Testaments in their laps, but gave them the authority to preach and teach.
• When the early church leaders had a debate about Gentiles entering the Church (Acts 11), they could not use the scriptures to decide the issue as the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist. Instead, they met and discussed the issue, with the Church leaders making a statement as to what should be done.
• People were converting to Christianity through oral word for many, many years before any of the New Testament was given.
• When the New Testament began to be written, it was addressed to people who had already been taught the faith through oral preaching, and (mainly in the case of the various epistles) its purpose was to clarify issues or correct problems, not be an exhaustive primer of the faith. Also, keep in mind that the books were written to a specific church or individual, and as a consequence, an epistle that might be widely read in one region might be completely unknown to another.
• Even after the books that we now know as the New Testament were written, there was no attempt to set down what the “New Testament” composed of until the middle of the second century AD. Even then, there was a lot of disagreement as to what constituted the New Testament canon. Some books like Jude, 3 John, and Revelation were at one point disputed, while some of the patristic writings like those by Clement and Ignatius were included. The New Testament as we know it was not formalized until the end of the 4th century AD. It was the church that created the Bible, not the other way around.
• Many people in ancient times were illiterate, so the only way for them to hear the Gospel was to go to church and hear it preached. BTW, while I’m at it, I’d like to explode the Protestant myth that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so ordinary people couldn’t read it.” As I said, the ordinary people were largely illiterate to begin with. Secondly, schools of that time (and for centuries thereafter) taught Latin as part of their curriculum, so anyone who could read could read Latin. Also, numerous vernacular translations of the Bible were in existence long before Luther & Co. came along.
• Furthermore, until the advent of the printing press, the necessity of writing everything by hand and the expense of writing materials (like parchment) made books too expensive for the average citizen. The concept of modern organizations (like for instance the Gideon’s) passing out pocket New Testaments by the truckload would have been fantastic to ancient Christians.
• We re told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote? It is the Catholic Church which preserved these writings for 16 centuries
• The Apostle John tells us twice in his Gospel (20:30, 21:25) that not all the things that Jesus said and did were written down. Were those words and deeds any less important because they weren’t? Keep in mind this was primarily an *oral *culture.
• In Acts 8, when Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands the passage in Isaiah he is reading, the Ethiopian responds, “How can, I, unless someone guides me?” (vv 27-31). In other words, whose interpretation do you trust? The practice of using Scripture Alone has shattered Christianity into over 30,000 different denominations (a number which shows no sign of decreasing), all of whom claim to follow the Bible, all who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, but all giving different interpretations! One sect claims baptism is necessary for salvation, another says it isn’t; one denomination says baptism provides grace, another says it’s merely a symbol, one believes in baptizing babies but another one says it’s nonsense. One sect believes in the Trinity, another does not. One sect says Jesus was God and man, but another says he was only a man, a third says something else. How is the earnest inquirer of Christian truth able to sort the wheat from the chaff?
• Finally, nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Sola Scriptura is unscriptural!

 

[guanophore]

Another question, How is one to view the Bible, is it to be taken for the holy inspired word of God?

Yes, but the question is, now is one to know what constitutes “bible”?

By what authority were 27 books chosen from among the 400+ books claiming to be inspired, chosen.

sola scriptura isn’t valid, what is to be added?
And by whom?

Sola scriptura IS the addition. It is not contained in the once for all deposit of faith given to the Church. It was added by the Reformers, in the course of rejecting the successors of the authorities appointed by Christ.

I creating this doctrine (about 500 years ago), the Reformers subtracted not only some of the books of the canon, but the Sacred Tradition that created the Scripture itself.
Lets avoid translation controversy and refer only to the Douay version.

 

[guanophore]

This is somewhat confusing, it would be much simpler if we could post directly beneath the person asking questions. Anyone know the moderator well enough to suggest it?

Use the “quote” button at the bottom right of the post, that way, the person you are responding to will be contained in your post.

One cannot prove SS anymore than one can prove the existence of God to an atheist. It takes faith. Heb 11:1

I think this is accurate, and honest.

My personal conclusion;

II Tim 3:16, All scripture is inspired by God…
So what is all scripture?
My faith is such that I believe that God Almighty, that loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son so that we might have life and have it more abundantly, also did not leave us without a written record, code of conduct, requirement list and the same one that has given us all things that pertain to life and Godliness has left us with all that is necessary. Genesis to Revelation. I prefer the KJV, however I don’t believe it is the only translation that is relevant, there are mistakes in it as well.

But by what authority can you accept this collection of writings as inspired? How do you know they are more inspired and inerrant than the collected works of Shakespeare?

What am I protesting??? Not much. If what we believe coincides with someone else, that does not mean we are one of them, does it?

No, but there is some unity of faith. To the extent our separated brethren have retained the Apostolic faith, we are in unity.

I differ as much or more with most Protestants as I do the RCC. However I feel Jesus gives liberty to believe and do exactly as we wish… until harvest time. Matt 7:22-23

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.

Can anyone tell what is the official position of the RCC on the bible? Is the bible believable? Is it inspired? Is the bible God's word?  Can we trust it?  I do, completely.

The Bible is a Catholic Book, written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. What the Church believes about the Bible is written in the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

My mistake Guano…I thought he maintained it until death I know he held it long after he was excommunicated…

“The tiresome devil begins to rage amongst the ungodly and to belch forth many wild and mazy beliefs and doctrines. This man will have nothing of baptism, that one denies the Sacrament, a third awaits another world between this and the Last Day ; some teach that Christ is not God ; some say this, some that, and there are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads ; no peasant is so rude but that if he dreams or fancies something, it must forsooth be the Holy Spirit which inspires him, and he himself must be a prophet.” (April, 1525, " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 547 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 " Briefwechsel," 5, p. 151)."

I have plenty to do in the course of the year with these poor people (foolish misled clowns): the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormenting me. As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppressed the souls of men; now they have bodies, and give themselves out for living angels . . .
When the pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles. The strong one (the devil) was in peace in his fortress; but now that a stronger one than he is come, and prevails against him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he storms and comes forth with noise and fury.
A.D. 1525." (Luth. Werke,tom. ii. p. 61,sqq.)

We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

In the end his followers rejected one of his most precious beliefs
“The great thing is none other than that she became the Mother of God; in which process so many and such great gifts were bestowed upon her that no one is able to comprehend them. Thereupon follows all honor, all blessedness, and the fact that in the whole race of men only one person is above all the rest, one to whom no one else is equal. For that reason her dignity is crowded into a single phrase when we call her the Mother of God; no one can say greater things of her or to her, even if he had as many tongues as leaves and blades of grass, as the stars in heaven and sands on the seashore. It must also be meditated in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.”

• Die Erklarung des Magnificat - 1521.

 

[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.

I honestly think that our objection to the idea of “Sola Scriptura” is less about a “sufficiancy” of the text as it is about that other peculiarly protestant and unbiblical notion of “private interpretation” which is so closely linked to Sola Scriptura.
True, there are some of the older Protestant groups such as the Lutherans and Anglicans who try to avoid the “private interpretation” model and have councils etc, but even these are finding it harder and harder to keep from splitting apart because of “private interpretation”.

So I just want to assure our brothers in Christ that we, as Catholics, are not “demoting” or otherwise attacking or playing down the central importance of the bible. Nor are we “raising up” the Church to a position not intended by Christ.
Rather, we are defending the interconnectedness of the two things - The written text and the authoritative Ekklesia (church -community) - and saying that one cannot stand properly without the other, and that each speaks to the truth of the other.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

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.

I honestly think that our objection to the idea of “Sola Scriptura” is less about a “sufficiancy” of the text as it is about that other peculiarly protestant and unbiblical notion of “private interpretation” which is so closely linked to Sola Scriptura.
True, there are some of the older Protestant groups such as the Lutherans and Anglicans who try to avoid the “private interpretation” model and have councils etc, but even these are finding it harder and harder to keep from splitting apart because of “private interpretation”.

So I just want to assure our brothers in Christ that we, as Catholics, are not “demoting” or otherwise attacking or playing down the central importance of the bible. Nor are we “raising up” the Church to a position not intended by Christ.
Rather, we are defending the interconnectedness of the two things - The written text and the authoritative Ekklesia (church -community) - and saying that one cannot stand properly without the other, and that each speaks to the truth of the other.

Peace
James

Well said, and a needed reminder in this discussion.

 

[porthos11]

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.

I honestly think that our objection to the idea of “Sola Scriptura” is less about a “sufficiancy” of the text as it is about that other peculiarly protestant and unbiblical notion of “private interpretation” which is so closely linked to Sola Scriptura.
True, there are some of the older Protestant groups such as the Lutherans and Anglicans who try to avoid the “private interpretation” model and have councils etc, but even these are finding it harder and harder to keep from splitting apart because of “private interpretation”.

So I just want to assure our brothers in Christ that we, as Catholics, are not “demoting” or otherwise attacking or playing down the central importance of the bible. Nor are we “raising up” the Church to a position not intended by Christ.
Rather, we are defending the interconnectedness of the two things - The written text and the authoritative Ekklesia (church -community) - and saying that one cannot stand properly without the other, and that each speaks to the truth of the other.

Peace
James

But Catholics must also be aware that for the sake of argument, it helps not to concede the inspiration of Scripture first, rather, let the Protestant establish it using Scripture alone. He can’t without resorting to logical fallacies (most likely and notably circular reasoning).

 

[mackbrislawn]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). !

Notice it says here, “…the man of God…” Not just anybody, but the man of God. That is, you must first be a man of God before scripture can be used by you. Of course Timothy was already a man of God, ordained by Paul to minister and teach. Scripture completes his equipment as such.

So, Scripture completes the man of God, but you don’t become a man of God via scripture alone.

 

[JRKH]

But Catholics must also be aware that for the sake of argument, it helps not to concede the inspiration of Scripture first, rather, let the Protestant establish it using Scripture alone. He can’t without resorting to logical fallacies (most likely and notably circular reasoning).

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