How sufficient is the Scripture?

[wcknight]

From one of Mary’s apparitions in Medjugore, she says that scriptures contains all that is necessary for salvation. However she supports the work of the Church and its teachings 100%.

Scriptures contains all the basics, but it can be abused by anyone who is not guided by the Church’s knowledge and background to interpret it correctly.

Just think, Hitler used his own view to help justify killing the Jews. The Church would never interpret scriptures to justify genocide, but individuals can and did do so.

wc

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Catholic29:

And what about the poor blind man or woman who could not actually read the scriptures to interpret them anyway?(Remember Braille was not invented until 1829)

And the printing press was not invented until 1436.

Also until recent times 90% of the Church was illiterate.

Theoretically speaking, folk could have gotten those who could read to read them the Bible.

Given the long work days of most peasants, however, this would not have been practical.

Catholic29:

Sorry if I offended anyone by this dissenting opinion.

You are not dissenting from the Church’s opinion.

 

[mtr01]

Lady of Shalott:

don’t make an idol out of your religion or Church and miss the true Reason for faith and worship.

Ani Ibi:

This is really insulting.
Lady of Shalott:

I’m not a Catholic, so I can’t respond with the Catholic answer to your question…but here’s the truth

.

And this is really presumptuous.

I heard a really good analogy from a former Evangelical Pastor who was on “The Journey Home” program the other day. He said that using Scripture as the sole rule of faith (sola scriptura) is like watching a baseball game through a hole in a fence - you only get to see left field, not the whole game. I guess you could say we Catholics get box seats to the game.

 

[mtr01]

Ani Ibi:

And the printing press was not invented until 1436.

Also until recent times 90% of the Church was illiterate.

Theoretically speaking, folk could have gotten those who could read to read them the Bible.

Given the long work days of most peasants, however, this would not have been practical.

Wouldn’t you say that it’s pretty telling that the sola scriptura heresy was not introduced before the invention of the printing press? It’s not a coincidence.

 

[michaelp]

And what about the poor blind man or woman who could not actually read the scriptures to interpret them anyway?(Remember Braille was not invented until 1829)

Actually, this is a misunderstanding of sola Scriputura. Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the reading of Scripture but the message of Scripture. The message of Scripture can be communicated in a variety of ways–even tradition! (which has been the case many times throughout history). In other words, I could abide by sola Scriptura even if I did not have an actual copy of Scriputre since I could still have recieved the message through various mediums.

Hope this clears things up a little.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

**The adherents of Sola Scriptura depend on either their own, or their pastor’s, or favorite evangelist’s interpretation of the Gospel. **.

And there’s the fly in the ointment – if ANYONE can interpret scripture, and scripture alone is the Word of God, then how can they claim that their interpretation is anymore right than anyone else’s?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

And there’s the fly in the ointment – if ANYONE can interpret scripture, and scripture alone is the Word of God, then how can they claim that their interpretation is anymore right than anyone else’s?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Same way many tyrants come to power: people buy into the notion that might is right.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Actually, this is a misunderstanding of sola Scriputura. Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the reading of Scripture but the message of Scripture. The message of Scripture can be communicated in a variety of ways–even tradition! (which has been the case many times throughout history). In other words, I could abide by sola Scriptura even if I did not have an actual copy of Scriputre since I could still have recieved the message through various mediums.

Hope this clears things up a little.

Michael

Hi Michael!

I think you’ve introduced more ambiguity here than you meant to.
Sola Scriptura certainly does have everything to do with reading Scripture. Either you read it yourself or someone can read it to you or they can recite it to you by memory - correct? When you introduce the concept of the “message” of Scripture it almost sounds like your saying that sola scriptura embraces the concept of someone INTERPRETING the message of Scripture rather than just reciting what it says. I don’t quite think that’s what most Sola Scriptura adherents would support as Scripture alone …

Just my thoughts

Phil

 

[Ignatius]

michaelp:

Hey all. I was wondering if Catholics believe if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation. Help me out here.

Does scripture say anywhere that “Scripture Alone is sufficient?”
If not, then it cannot be.

 

[michaelp]

Ignatius:

Does scripture say anywhere that “Scripture Alone is sufficient?”
If not, then it cannot be.

Does the Scripture ever explicitly say that God exists? If not, then it is not true.

Does the Scripture ever say that there is not another Messiah?
Does the Scripture ever say that prophecy has ceased?
Does the Scripture ever say that the canon is closed?
Does the Scripture ever say that Christ did not come back already?
Does the Scripture say that Paul knew Timothy?
Does the Scripture ever say that you are not the Messiah?
Does the Scripture ever say that Tradition is a second-source of the one apostolic deposit?

If so, show me where.

Do you believe all those things? If so, you do so by implication.

Michael

 

[Ignatius]

michaelp:

Ignatius:

Does scripture say anywhere that “Scripture Alone is sufficient?”

**
*Does the Scripture ever explicitly say that God exists? *

Classic avoidance ploy used to divert attention away from the issue. Please answer the question I asked.

God Bless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Up to your old tricks, I see, Michael.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[michaelp]

Ignatius:

Classic avoidance ploy used to divert attention away from the issue. Please answer the question I asked.

God Bless.

Are you telling me that you really don’t get what it means to teach by implication.

Of course the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. It does so by implication. There is nothing else that is given the authority that Scripture is given.

Now, can you show me where in the Bible it says that Tradition is a separate infallible avenue of the one deposit of the apostles?

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Are you telling me that you really don’t get what it means to teach by implication.

Of course the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. It does so by implication. There is nothing else that is given the authority that Scripture is given.

Now, can you show me where in the Bible it says that Tradition is a separate infallible avenue of the one deposit of the apostles?

Michael

No, Michael, he’s telling you he’s not fooled by your attempts to beg the question. You want to lead someone down the primrose path, and accept your sola scriptura argument, so you can prove sola scriptura.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

No, Michael, he’s telling you he’s not fooled by your attempts to beg the question. You want to lead someone down the primrose path, and accept your sola scriptura argument, so you can prove sola scriptura.

No it your faulty assumption that I accept sola Scriptura based on the evidence of Scripture alone. That I don’t. I base it on it historicity, unity, prophetic character, self-authentication, acceptance of the Church, and many other factors. To say that Scripture is inspired because it says it is inspired is faulty. It has to have self authenticating character and evidence. Its writers must be authenticated. This does not say that there could not be other revelation or voices that speak for God. I am certianly not against the continuation of prophecy. But the prophet (or one who claims to speak on behalf of God) must show the signs of a prophet.

But at the same time, Scripture does not say anything about the infallibility of another source of the deposit of faith. Can you show me where. If you cannot show me where from the already authenticated word of God, you are going to have to prove that there is a separate avenue for the word of God to go through (in your case tradition as interpreted by an infallible person who speaks on behalf of God) and that avenue must be authenticated by the same criteria that the “other” avenue, Scripture, had to be authenticated.

Unless you want to say that tradition, or the regula fide, is the same as Scripture. Then you and I are closer. But if you want an infallible interpreted, he or she must prove their infallibility. Otherwise there is no reason beyond pragmatics to say that it is true.

So don’t let your presuppositions be your guide. You don’t have enough straw to build as many men as you seem to be.

I pray that you are doing well Vern.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

No it your faulty assumption that I accept sola Scriptura based on the evidence of Scripture alone. That I don’t. I base it on it historicity, unity, prophetic character, self-authentication, acceptance of the Church, and many other factors.

In other words, you base your belief in Sola Scriptura on Tradition.

Neato! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

michaelp:

To say that Scripture is inspired because it says it is inspired is faulty. It has to have self authenticating character and evidence. Its writers must be authenticated.

And the people who did the authenticating must of necessity have Divine Authority to undertake that task.

You’re getting more and more Catholic.

michaelp:

But at the same time, Scripture does not say anything about the infallibility of another source of the deposit of faith. Can you show me where. If you cannot show me where from the already authenticated word of God,

You’re going around in circles, Michael – how did the word of God GET authenticated? Did YOU do it, personally?

Who did it? And on what basis?

michaelp:

you are going to have to prove that there is a separate avenue for the word of God to go through (in your case tradition as interpreted by an infallible person who speaks on behalf of God) and that avenue must be authenticated by the same criteria that the “other” avenue, Scripture, had to be authenticated.,

Now we’re getting somewhere! The scriptures were authenticated by Tradition. And if the Tradition was faulty, or the people who did the authenticating had no Divine Authority to do it – then the Scriptures are faulty.

michaelp:

Unless you want to say that tradition, or the regula fide, is the same as Scripture. Then you and I are closer. But if you want an infallible interpreted, he or she must prove their infallibility. Otherwise there is no reason beyond pragmatics to say that it is true.

What is your preoccupation with the word “infallible?”

Are the Scriptures infallible? If so, those who chose them, out of a mass of candidate writings, must have had the property of true teaching.

Or are you willing to admit that some of the books of the New Testament are not properly part of the canon, and other books shold be included?

 

[deb1]

michaelp:

No it your faulty assumption that I accept sola Scriptura based on the evidence of Scripture alone. That I don’t. I base it on it historicity, unity, prophetic character, self-authentication, acceptance of the Church, and many other factors. .

Michael

I was just curious. You said that you don’t accept sola scripture on the basis of scripture alone. You mentioned history. What events in history justifies your belief in sola scriptura? Also you mention the acceptance of the Church. Which church are you talking about? I realize that you don’t have room for long answers but I am interested in the historical basis for sola scriptura.

Also, excuse me if this is a stupid question, but what do you mean by self authentication? The answer is probably obvious to every one else, but I need clarification Sorry.

 

[deb1]

I have one more question. How is it that Prots belief in sola scriptura when they don’t have the whole scriptures? This has always bothered me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

deb1:

I was just curious. You said that you don’t accept sola scripture on the basis of scripture alone. You mentioned history. What events in history justifies your belief in sola scriptura? Also you mention the acceptance of the Church. Which church are you talking about? I realize that you don’t have room for long answers but I am interested in the historical basis for sola scriptura.

Also, excuse me if this is a stupid question, but what do you mean by self authentication? The answer is probably obvious to every one else, but I need clarification Sorry.

Pastor Michael Patton is just trolling. He plays the old game of trying to get an argument started with a concealed agenda, so he can pretend your willingness to argue validates his agenda.

Not so long ago, he was asking, “Who interprets the Magisterium?” As if the Magistgerium were a collection of data!

 

[Ignatius]

michaelp:

Then it must be interpreted ad infinitum.

Exactly, until the end of time, when He will return in Glory. That’s why Jesus established His Church in the first place. Otherwise there would be no way to determine whose interpretation is correct.

May the peace of Christ be with you.