Help with Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abeyta85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abeyta85

Guest
Hello!

So I have been talking with a Bible Alone believing Christian, and I need some help refuting some of the statements. I have searched for some threads, but couldn’t find as really good ones in depth.
No the Bible doesnt contradict itself at all which im sure is a huge disappointment to the governing catholics.
Theres a letter C. you failed to mention.
Its this.
The Bible contains two kinds of Truths. 1. Positional & 2. Practical
The Positional Truth represent God, His Principles, and where we stand in relation to.
Practical Truths are contigent on our ability to cooperate with the Positional Truths.
Sin is practical. Righteousness is positional. One changes. The other doesnt.
Also…
Find me one place where Paul tells people to think of themselves as sinners?
Never. Not one time. But he says over and over that You are the righteousness of God, You are a new creature in Christ, you were translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of His dearSon.
Obviously, Paul wanted people to be more God conscious than sin conscious now didnt He little catholic?
This guy is a jerk, but I would like to correct him.

Any help is appreciated.
 
First allow me to reproach you for calling him a jerk, he is a child of God who has a desire to know Christ however distorted and untrue his view of him is at the moment.

St.Paul in his letters calls himself the greatest sinner of them all to whom he is writing. That should be an easy enough refute.

There is a great site online that helps with retorts to sola scriptura and it is called www.scripturecatholic.com

I suggest that if you are going to enter into a debate with someone that it isnt an argumentative one. I pray that you will enter with the desire to opening the door to this young man so that by the grace of God through your prayers will help him enter therein. Do not enter into it with the desire to just get one over on him, and to lets say have an attitude of ‘‘stick it to the man’’.
 
First allow me to reproach you for calling him a jerk, he is a child of God who has a desire to know Christ however distorted and untrue his view of him is at the moment.

St.Paul in his letters calls himself the greatest sinner of them all to whom he is writing. That should be an easy enough refute.

There is a great site online that helps with retorts to sola scriptura and it is called www.scripturecatholic.com

I suggest that if you are going to enter into a debate with someone that it isnt an argumentative one. I pray that you will enter with the desire to opening the door to this young man so that by the grace of God through your prayers will help him enter therein. Do not enter into it with the desire to just get one over on him, and to lets say have an attitude of ‘‘stick it to the man’’.
Thank you for the reference, It would seem pretty easy, yet he does twist scripture a lot. I apologize for the “Jerk” Comment, didn’t mean to say he is, but he was really pushing that at a lot of Catholics including myself. I guess I am pretty irritated, and let my mind get the best of me. Thank you for the reminder.

Let me try this again… see what he says.
 
‘‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I myself am the greatest of them;’’ ( 1Tim:1:15 )
 
I don’t understand how someone can get 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”

interpretation that this is just telling the bible Orally but still believing in Sola Scriptura?
 
40.png
Abeyta85:
I don’t understand how someone can get 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”

interpretation that this is just telling the bible Orally but still believing in Sola Scriptura?
Just a quick comment on how someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura views this verse - the Scripture itself makes this an either/or comparison (“either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (emphasis mine). I have examined over 20 different translations, and found that most used “either/or” or “whether/or” in this verse (I would suggest that both forms indicate the same thing, which is that whatever God intended for us to know, He inspired the apostle to write it down for us). There were only 3 versions that made it appear as if both were needed, but these are modern versions (and I think one was a paraphrase, so technically, it’s not even a translation). BTW, the Douay-Rheims uses the “whether/or” form. Perhaps someone who has access to the Greek and/or Vulgate text could tell us how it reads there.

Pax!
 
I don’t understand how someone can get 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”

interpretation that this is just telling the bible Orally but still believing in Sola Scriptura?
Remember Abetya, there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura, it does not exist. Below is an excerpt from Catholic apologist John Salza ( www.scripturecatholic.com ) the site I just gave you.
Code:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
As we have discussed, Protestants believe that Christians are to follow the Scriptures alone as their sole source of Christian truth (sola Scriptura). But then why does Saint Paul tell us to follow both the Scriptures and the oral word? Isn’t Paul adding something else to follow in addition to the Bible? Yes he is, because the doctrine of sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine.

Saint Paul is saying that obeying the written tradition (the Scriptures) is not enough. We must also obey the oral tradition. This is the body of teaching that Christ gave the apostles that was not written down (if it were, Saint John says that “even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25). In other words, it’s everything else the Church teaches on faith and morals. We can be thankful for the oral apostolic traditions which have definitively taught us about the Blessed Trinity, the two natures of Christ (human and divine), the union of those natures (hypostatic union), the Filioque (the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), and the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible and what books do not). All of these teachings, and many, many more, are not explicitly taught in the Bible, yet are generally believed by all Christians. To learn more about the oral apostolic tradition, buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) which means “to hand on” from one generation to the next.

Moreover, the Protestant argument is also refuted by the way in which the Church selected the Bible canon. While the last apostle John died around 100 A.D., the Bible was not finally compiled until 397 A.D. The Church was thus required to rely upon the oral apostolic tradition during this 300 year period in order to determine which letters were inspired and which letters were not. The tradition they depended on, of course, did not come from the mouths of the apostles (they were deceased), but from their successors. (There is also no reason to conclude that the Church should listen to the fourth, fifth or sixth generation of apostolic successors, but not to later successors such as those of our day).

We should also note that the apostolic traditions Paul is commanding us to follow in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are not the same as the Pharisaical traditions that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:9. The traditions Jesus condemned dealt with the Old Testament ceremonial rituals and other acts that contravened the New Testament Gospel. So there are certain human traditions that, if contrary to the Gospel, we must reject, and oral apostolic tradition, as Paul commands, which we must accept.

The only other argument the Protestant can make is that, once the Bible was compiled, all oral apostolic tradition was committed to the Scriptures. As a result, the requirement to follow oral tradition ceased. But this they cannot prove from the Bible. There is nothing in the Scriptures that commands us to follow oral tradition until the Bible is compiled, and then to follow the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible). In fact, Jesus never even commanded any of His apostles to write anything down. They were only charged to “preach the Gospel to all creation.” Matthew 28:19. Because the Scriptures are the living word of God which is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Hebrews 13:10), and there is no verse in Scripture that repudiates Paul’s instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we must also obey the oral tradition of the Church as Paul commanded, or we are not being faithful to the Scriptures.
scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html#III
 
  • Code:
    "No the Bible doesnt contradict itself at all which im sure is a huge disappointment to the governing catholics."*
As a Catholic (since Easter) I would agree that the Bible does not contradict itself, so I see no reason for disappointment
  • Code:
    "The Bible contains two kinds of Truths. 1. Positional & 2. Practical
    The Positional Truth represent God, His Principles, and where we stand in relation to.
    Practical Truths are contigent on our ability to cooperate with the Positional Truths.
    Sin is practical. Righteousness is positional. One changes. The other doesnt."*
I have not seen in the Bible where it says it contains Positional and Practical truths, nor have I seen where God deals in “Principles”. I have seen in Scriptures that God deals in covenants, with the Jews, who were joined to the old covenant via circumcision, and with the Church (the Kingdom established by God) the members of which are joined to this new covenant when the Church baptizes them. What I have seen in “evangelical protestant” preaching is the use of “biblical principles” as a way of participating in the words of the scriptures, and I would say this happens because they do not see the real way of becoming a participant in Jesus’ gospel. Participation in the gospel is not about “cooperating with Truths”.

I see nothing in the bible about “cooperating with Truths” – I do see the call to believe the gospel that the Kingdom God established is here, the call to turn from sin and be baptized, be granted entrance into the Kingdom. And just like the Ethiopian in Acts rejoiced at being included in the People of God, being granted citizenship with baptism, also I am joyful that the Church did not retain my sin against me, but forgave my sin and granted me to be a part of the Church, granted me full citizenship in Jesus’ Kingdom. And even now, when I confess my sins, as St. John encourages, God is faithful and just and grants me forgiveness through his servant. This is what does not change – from the day of Pentecost until today, the Church has made people part of the new covenant by baptizing and teaching them to hold close all that Jesus told them. Jesus did not commission a book to lead us, but he commissioned his apostles (later called bishops). If Peter were to have told me how to understand a letter from Paul, I would have taken Peter as the final authority, not my own opinion of what Paul wrote (Peter does, in fact, make reference to Paul’s letters, saying Paul is hard to understand). And vice versa, if Paul were to have told me how to understand a letter from Peter, I would have taken Paul’s interpretation as the final authority rather than telling Paul my interpretation of the letter was just as valid as his interpretation.

The bishops chose what books would be in the bible (in the 4th century, from an earlier post); the bible did not tell anyone what books to include. Here is the point of believing in Jesus – believing that he knew what he was doing in appointing leadership to this pilgrim Kingdom that is in the world, but is not of the world. For me and my house, we will believe that He inspires his appointed leaders (Pope, bishops, priests, deacons). The bible was written by the faithful and was consolidated into a single book by the faithful bishops. And it is mis-read when it is not presented to us by the faithful, by the Church that Jesus established to teach us.

The Bible does stand alone – but it is “copyrighted” by the Church, and the “owner of the copyright” is the only one who can truly say what it means. Everyone else is just speculating what it means.
 
Hello!

So I have been talking with a Bible Alone believing Christian, and I need some help refuting some of the statements. I have searched for some threads, but couldn’t find as really good ones in depth.

Also…

This guy is a jerk, but I would like to correct him.

Any help is appreciated.
A few considerations:
  1. Is it reasonable that our Lord would institute a Church that utilized a Book as its sole authority when for the first 14 centuries access to that said book was very limited?
  2. Is there any statements in Holy Scripture itself that gives itself that kind of authority. Ask him to show you a verse that says the Bible and the Bible ONLY is the sole rule of faith.
  3. Ask what the Holy Scripture say about Tradition.
  4. Ask him how the Bible he is hold came into being? Who determined what books should be included? Is there an inspired Table of Contents? Ask him if Tradition played a role in helping determine what books belonged in the Bible.
Also, check out this article, its awesome: goo.gl/eE2I

Good luck and please remember (I often fail ) that we must show the love of Christ at all times.
  • Michael
 
Ask the “Bible” Christian what he does on Sunday morning. He or she should say “I go to XYZ Bible Church, the House of the Lord, and worship in spirit and truth.”

Now ask him where in the Bible it says to:
  1. Worship in a church building instead of at home
  2. Worship on Sunday (which is not the biblical Sabbath, Saturday is)
  3. That said building is a “House of the Lord”
These are, of course, Tradition. There IS biblical support for Sunday worship but it is tied to the Eucharist. If your interlocutor mentions “breaking bread” then you should ask what is so special about that bread that justified having a special building where it is done, and calling said building a “House of the Lord.” There is no satisfactory answer to that question in Calvinist Protestantsm from which came “Bible” Christianity.
 
‘Man must not live on bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ seems to bring Sola Scriptura into question.

Scripture IS the intended doctrine, IS the intended statement of faith, IS authoritative, a representation of the true Church, containing the exact Gospel, reveals God’s purpose, testifies about Jesus, and explains the way of salvation. Man’s interpretation of the Scripture can generally only approach its truth. dtg13.com
 
First allow me to reproach you for calling him a jerk, he is a child of God who has a desire to know Christ however distorted and untrue his view of him is at the moment.

St.Paul in his letters calls himself the greatest sinner of them all to whom he is writing. That should be an easy enough refute.

There is a great site online that helps with retorts to sola scriptura and it is called www.scripturecatholic.com

I suggest that if you are going to enter into a debate with someone that it isnt an argumentative one. I pray that you will enter with the desire to opening the door to this young man so that by the grace of God through your prayers will help him enter therein. Do not enter into it with the desire to just get one over on him, and to lets say have an attitude of ‘‘stick it to the man’’.
I’m sorry, but a protestant who attacks the papacy, mary, Christ’s church, the sacraments, ect. is not a child of God.
 
I’m sorry, but a protestant who attacks the papacy, mary, Christ’s church, the sacraments, ect. is not a child of God.
IF the person is truly ignorant I would be a little more lenient, but… once the truth has been revealed, and they still turn their back… welll…?? Ack!!
 
Nowhere in the Bible does it name itself as to the sole, definitive and authoritative source of the teaching of the faith.

You can also ask your friend what did the early Christians base their faith on, if the last apostle died in about 100 AD and the canon of the Bible of was not laid down until 397 AD (almost 3 centuries later).
 
Ask them this, where in the Bible did Jesus ever told His disciples to write down His accounts?

Where in the Bible did the Apostles asked the Christians to put their letters down as part of the Scripture?

We all know that the Bible contain the truth, but here’s the question which no Protestant have ever answer me, how do they know that their interpretation of the Bible is true? Most of the time when a person come to you and says: “The Bible said…”, most of the time it wouldn’t be what the Bible says but how he interpret the Bible. Ask them that given the Bible is true, how would you know your interpretation is true? Rememeber that St.Peter warned us not to make personal interpretation of the Bible.
 
40.png
UnityofTrinity:
Ask them this, where in the Bible did Jesus ever told His disciples to write down His accounts?
As a former Roman Catholic, my thoughts immediately turn to John 21:25 (“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” RSV), but I don’t think very many Catholics would accept this argument from a Protestant (why some Catholics think it is an acceptable argument when asked where Jesus taught such things as purgatory or indulgences, I can’t imagine). I would suggest, though, that since the Scriptures were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (who, like Jesus, IS God), then the question is moot. Remember, the author of Scripture is God, not man (that is what Peter talks about - see the note below).
Where in the Bible did the Apostles asked the Christians to put their letters down as part of the Scripture?
Since God is the author of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit guides the true Church, then it is God who informed His people which writings were His (and even Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15-16)).
We all know that the Bible contain the truth, but here’s the question which no Protestant have ever answer me, how do they know that their interpretation of the Bible is true? Most of the time when a person come to you and says: “The Bible said…”, most of the time it wouldn’t be what the Bible says but how he interpret the Bible. Ask them that given the Bible is true, how would you know your interpretation is true? Rememeber that St.Peter warned us not to make personal interpretation of the Bible.
Considering how many verses of Scripture the Roman Catholic Church has “infallibly” defined, I don’t see that the Catholic is much better off than the Protestant. To be sure, there are many who give their opinion (or “understanding”) in place of Scripture, but I see this among both Catholics and Protestants. However, I do believe we can study the Scriptures and come to an understanding of their meaning that would be acceptable to God (remember, the Jews did not have an “infallible magestirium”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was in Scriptures, even to the point of showing how to determine if a tradition is from God or man - see Mark 7:6-13).

To illustrate my point, you said, “Rememeber that St.Peter warned us not to make personal interpretation of the Bible.”. I’m guessing this is from 2 Peter 1:20 (“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” RSV). However, if you read the entire chapter, you will see that Peter is not talking about us interpreting Scripture, but is explaining how Scripture (specifically, prophecy) comes from God, not man.
 
Just a quick comment on how someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura views this verse - the Scripture itself makes this an either/or comparison (“either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (emphasis mine). I have examined over 20 different translations, and found that most used “either/or” or “whether/or” in this verse (I would suggest that both forms indicate the same thing, which is that whatever God intended for us to know, He inspired the apostle to write it down for us). There were only 3 versions that made it appear as if both were needed, but these are modern versions (and I think one was a paraphrase, so technically, it’s not even a translation). BTW, the Douay-Rheims uses the “whether/or” form. Perhaps someone who has access to the Greek and/or Vulgate text could tell us how it reads there.

Pax!
It doesn’t matter if they use “Whether” or “Or” because it says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditionS, which you have learned…” It says to hold on to the Traditions (plural) which means both. When is says “Whether” and “Or” it is describing which traditions. Since it says “Traditions” (plural), it means BOTH.
 
Hello!

So I have been talking with a Bible Alone believing Christian, and I need some help refuting some of the statements. I have searched for some threads, but couldn’t find as really good ones in depth.

Also…

This guy is a jerk, but I would like to correct him.

Any help is appreciated.
Wow. I would have expected your friend to know “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

If that’s not calling everyone a sinner, I don’t know what it.
 
As a former Roman Catholic, my thoughts immediately turn to John *21:25 (“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” RSV), but I don’t think very many Catholics would accept this argument from a Protestant (why some Catholics think it is an acceptable argument when asked where Jesus taught such things as purgatory or indulgences, I can’t imagine).
In part because such things are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.
I would suggest, though, that since the Scriptures were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (who, like Jesus, IS God), then the question is moot. Remember, the author of Scripture is God, not man (that is what Peter talks about - see the note below).

Since God is the author of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit guides the true Church, then it is God who informed His people which writings were His (and even Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15-16)).
How would you know which writings are Scripture inspired by God?

And if you seriously think that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not divinely inspired, then this “Roman Catholic” church against which you rail is a figment of your imagination. The (real) Catholic Church has always taught:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church #135:
The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.
Considering how many verses of Scripture the Roman Catholic Church has “infallibly” defined,
The entire Bible.
I don’t see that the Catholic is much better off than the Protestant.To be sure, there are many who give their opinion (or “understanding”) in place of Scripture, but I see this among both Catholics and Protestants.
Please look in the mirror and say that to the person on the other side.
However, I do believe we can study the Scriptures and come to an understanding of their meaning that would be acceptable to God
And how would you know that your understanding of the Scriptures is pleasing to God?
(remember, the Jews did not have an “infallible magestirium”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was in Scriptures, even to the point of showing how to determine if a tradition is from God or man - see Mark 7:6-13).
They did. It was called the Sanhedrin and Jesus said of it:
Matthew 23.2-23.3:
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach.*
However, the Sanhedrin lost the favor of God when it condemned Jesus to die, and so lost its infallibility.
To illustrate my point, you said, “Rememeber that St.Peter warned us not to make personal interpretation of the Bible.”. *I’m guessing this is from 2 Peter 1:20 (“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” RSV). *However, if you read the entire chapter, you will see that Peter is not talking about us interpreting Scripture, but is explaining how Scripture (specifically, prophecy) comes from God, not man.
You are a man. How do we know you are right?
 
40.png
James224:
It doesn’t matter if they use “Whether” or “Or” because it says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditionS, which you have learned…” It says to hold on to the Traditions (plural) which means both. When is says “Whether” and “Or” it is describing which traditions. Since it says “Traditions” (plural), it means BOTH.
It does matter, because this is not talking about more than one tradition, but how these traditions can be known. Many of the people this was addressed to had heard Paul, but what was written was available for everyone (especially to us today).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top