I don't get sola scriptura

[Richard_Kastner]

Please show me where I said that

You said “But the Bible doesn’t say that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture.”

To which I replied

“It doesn’t have to say it is there. It is there.”

To which you replied

“That assumption is extra-biblical.”

So, you say that my “assumption” that salvation is contained in the bible is extra biblical. I can only take that to mean that you do not think that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible. So where is it?

You said, or at least implied, that all we need to know is the saving blood of Jesus Christ. My comment only took your statement to its logical conclusion.

Ok, I’m just not sure what your point is in making it.

Christ gave all authority to His Church. The power to bind and loose and whatever it binds on earth will be bound in heaven and all that it looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. Christ gave the Church the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That is where you find it. No, it is not all in the Bible.

Are you saying what I think you are saying here? That without the CC Christ’s sacrifice is invalide?

Yes, the truth of salvation of Jesus Christ is found in Scripture, but the realization of salvation is found in His Church, of which He is the Head. So no, I do not in any way agree with SS. We must have an authoritative interpreter of Scripture and the Church to administer the saving grace of Christ. A relationship with Christ means a relationship with His Church.

This sure seems like you are saying that we can’t be saved unless we are Catholics.

May I ask you why you believe that Christ started the Church?

Sure, in order to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.

Matt.28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The deposit of faith containing the fullness of truth, handed down orally by the Apostles.

I don’t understand what relavance this has.

The New Testament had not been written when this was said so he could not have been referring to it. Christ is the Word made flesh.

The whole bible is about God’s plan of salvation, which comes to fruition in Jesus Christ.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Well, then it’s part of SS.

Well, there may be gold in the hills, but unless you find it doesn’t get you too far.

Doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[SteveVH]

You said “But the Bible doesn’t say that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture.”

To which I replied

“It doesn’t have to say it is there. It is there.”

To which you replied

“That assumption is extra-biblical.”

So, you say that my “assumption” that salvation is contained in the bible is extra biblical. I can only take that to mean that you do not think that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible. So where is it?

No, I said that your assumption that “all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture” is extra-biblical.

Ok, I’m just not sure what your point is in making it.

My point was that there is much more involved in attaining the salvation made possible by Christ’s sacrifice. That is why He started the Church. Even the demons know that salvation was made possible by Christ’s sacrifice. That knowledge does not save them.

Are you saying what I think you are saying here? That without the CC Christ’s sacrifice is invalide?

What I am saying is that you cannot separate Christ from His Church. That is why He gave His authority to the Church and why the Catholic Church re-presents this sacrifice every single day in every Catholic Church in the world. It makes this very sacrifice present to the world in every generation. We don’t just remember what He did for us.The Church makes it present to us as if we were standing there under the cross ourselves.

This sure seems like you are saying that we can’t be saved unless we are Catholics.

Do you not agree that Christ started one Church, not many, and desires unity among His flock? God knows the hearts of each of His children and in His mercy saves those who, through no fault of their own, are not in full communion with His one Church. Those, however, who know the truth of the Catholic Church and reject it cannot be saved because they, by their own choice, have walked away from the family of God. They have placed themselves outside of salvation, which is found in His Church.

Sure, in order to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.

Matt.28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Then what prevents you from coming into that Church in which He promised to remain, even unto the end of the world?

I don’t understand what relavance this has.

The relevance it has is that the Church existed and flourished, even under extreme persection, and guarded the truth given to it by Jesus Christ and handed down to it by the Apostles for nearly four hundred years before the canon of the New testament had been compiled. Add to that the fact that most of the world was illiterate and that there were no printing presses in existence in order to distribute the written Gospel. Christianity depended upon the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition which was committed to writing. Without the Tradition of the Church you would not have the Bible on which you depend for truth. It is a Catholic document, and so you had better hope that Tradition is valid because that is the source of Sacred Scripture.

The whole bible is about God’s plan of salvation, which comes to fruition in Jesus Christ.

Yes.

Well, then it’s part of SS.

No, it makes it part of Sacred Scripture which itself does not claim to be the sole authority.

Doesn’t mean it’s not there.

No. It means you will need some help in finding it. And the help is the Catholic Church, the only authoritative interpreter of its own document, the Bible.

 

[Zirconia]

“Christianity depended upon the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church…”

So why bother writing any of it down in the first place, if Christianity could get along just fine without it? And why would one of the Saints invent an entire alphabet and teach it to the Visigoths, and then translate the Bible into Visigothic so they could read it? Wouldn’t it have been easier to teach them Tradition, which would have told them everything they needed to know about Christianity?

 

[exnihilo]

Matt.28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Christ told the Apostles to teach all that He has commanded. How do we know that everything he commanded was written down?

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The Bible itself tells us that not everything was written down.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.

I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.

First mistake:
Don’t say Solo Scriptura: say bible only

Second mistake:
Don’t say Protestants"
some call themselves Christians, only.

There has been so much fraud in our day as well as in the past to not trust just anything someone says, especially large organizations as ancient as the Catholic Church. In fact, some would use the ancientness of the Catholic faith as a reason not to trust it, considering the historical facts that there have been many heresies under the watch of Catholic leaders. There have been many abuses, murders included, interlaced with Catholicism for one reason or another. the 3 popes issues also creates distrust, and the Great Schism. The Spanish Inquisition, which is for the most part largely misunderstood and misinterpreted by many also tempt distrust. The recent sexual scandals and the endless attempts to say that teenage victims disqualify the accusation of Priest pedophiles. Don’t try to make excuses for bad people and you might begin to gain more trust by starting with explanations.

 

[mackbrislawn]

“Christianity depended upon the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church…”

So why bother writing any of it down in the first place, if Christianity could get along just fine without it? And why would one of the Saints invent an entire alphabet and teach it to the Visigoths, and then translate the Bible into Visigothic so they could read it? Wouldn’t it have been easier to teach them Tradition, which would have told them everything they needed to know about Christianity?

Let’s turn the question around. Why bother preaching the word if Chrisitanity could get along with just the writings? Why did the apostles bother going from place to place preaching? All they needed was writing.

Or, let’s ask it this way. What good are writings if we don’t have the writings? What good are writings if we cannot read them? They are worthless unless there is a church to possess them and copy them, and translate them, and to read them aloud to the congregation. They are less than worthless unless there is a church to teach what they mean. See 2Peter 3:16. Also look at 1John 2:24.

 

[mackbrislawn]

We should distrust the ancient religion of the Jews as well. They sure had plernty of murder and infidelity and sin. Their God even wiped out most of the population of the planet by flood. He also told Joshua to murder every man, woman, and child in Jericho.

 

[PbloPicasso]

We should distrust the ancient religion of the Jews as well. They sure had plernty of murder and infidelity and sin. Their God even wiped out most of the population of the planet by flood. He also told Joshua to murder every man, woman, and child in Jericho.

And that is what people think as well. I’m not draggin Jews in the middle of our Christian faith…sins.

My point is as follows.

Have you heard of Pavlov’s dog experiment? nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/pavlov/readmore.html

He rang a bell each time he fed a dog.
The dog salivated at the sight of the food.
He did it so many times that when he rang the bell, even without the food the dog salivated.

It’s called 'conditioning".

Have you ever seen an abused dog? The dog lives in fear and trembles at the sight of a human that acts aggressively. I’ve had several pets in my past that were formerly abused before we took care of them.

I also know abused people. People react similarly and require constant care and encouragement to help them overcome their fears. Some people never overcome them, others find strength through the help of God. Some find holy people that help them work through their issues. The historical facts remain, whether good of bad. Understanding that history is what helps when the facts are disclosed properly or at least in a way to convey the message that people are sinful and God is merciful. We place far too much trust in people, even holy men and women. God is the center of all things. The Church is not what’s evil, it’s the people within the Church that are sinners. We say that the Church is a hospital for sinners. As patients within this hospital, we must try to be compassionate towards those that are not Catholic and try our best to convey God’s Love and Mercy as best we can and apologize for those that have failed to show Christ’s Love.

The history of the factual Church is what brought me home. I was given all the over exagerated history and it took learning the real history that helped me understand it better. After many years in a fundamentalist faith I learned that the same issues are there as well. So it made me realize I was running for the wrong reasons and that is why I am Catholic today. Only I stand by the “teachings of the Church”, not of man. There are so many heretical Catholics out there that people must be careful what they believe when learning outside the official teaching of the Church. I was NOT speaking ill of the Church, only trying to convey the idea of my own experience and understanding. The Church is wonderful. Most of the religious and clergy are great people. But there have been enough to create doubt in some or many. We must learn to convey the truth in love in context. Historically speaking life was very harsh during those times I mentioned. The government was also full of misguided folks that sometimes abused their power, i.e., Spanish Inquisition. The Church was the safe haven for those suffering back then.

 

[Zirconia]

Let’s turn the question around. Why bother preaching the word if Chrisitanity could get along with just the writings? Why did the apostles bother going from place to place preaching? All they needed was writing.

Or, let’s ask it this way. What good are writings if we don’t have the writings? What good are writings if we cannot read them? They are worthless unless there is a church to possess them and copy them, and translate them, and to read them aloud to the congregation. They are less than worthless unless there is a church to teach what they mean. See 2Peter 3:16. Also look at 1John 2:24.

I will concede that in an aliterate/preliterate society oral teaching is very important. But doesn’t there have to be more to it, when such an effort was made so that a previously aliterate society could access the writings? Or the effort that went into making the medieval handwritten copies of the Bible? I guess I don’t see the connection between the oral teachings and the idea that it should be at all important to reduce at least part of them to writing (given that the first are and will remain uncorrupted, which I understand to be the Catholic position). I understand the first is important, but how do we get from the first to the second, and at what point and why did the second start assuming importance?

Maybe the shift to (nearly) universal literacy in my part of the world is tilting my perspective in this area. Perhaps it is tilting the entire mentality that is behind SS.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, I said that your assumption that "all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture" is extra-biblical.

Do you think that all the information that we need for our salvation is in the bible or not?

My point was that there is much more involved in attaining the salvation made possible by Christ’s sacrifice. That is why He started the Church. Even the demons know that salvation was made possible by Christ’s sacrifice. That knowledge does not save them.

Is it a secret what else do we need?

What I am saying is that you cannot separate Christ from His Church. That is why He gave His authority to the Church and why the Catholic Church re-presents this sacrifice every single day in every Catholic Church in the world. It makes this very sacrifice present to the world in every generation. We don’t just remember what He did for us.The Church makes it present to us as if we were standing there under the cross ourselves.

The authority that Christ gave the church was to preach the Gospel Matt.28:18,19

Do you not agree that Christ started one Church, not many, and desires unity among His flock?

Yes.

God knows the hearts of each of His children and in His mercy saves those who, through no fault of their own, are not in full communion with His one Church. Those, however, who know the truth of the Catholic Church and reject it cannot be saved because they, by their own choice, have walked away from the family of God. They have placed themselves outside of salvation, which is found in His Church.

Salvation is found in the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Titus 2:14
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 John 5:10
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Steve, what do you think the record that God gave of His Son is refering to here in 1Jn.5:10

Then what prevents you from coming into that Church in which He promised to remain, even unto the end of the world?

I am in that church.

The relevance it has is that the Church existed and flourished, even under extreme persection, and guarded the truth given to it by Jesus Christ and handed down to it by the Apostles for nearly four hundred years before the canon of the New testament had been compiled. Add to that the fact that most of the world was illiterate and that there were no printing presses in existence in order to distribute the written Gospel. Christianity depended upon the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Ok, are you saying there is something that we need for our salvation that is in your sacred tradition that is not contained in scripture?

The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition which was committed to writing. Without the Tradition of the Church you would not have the Bible on which you depend for truth. It is a Catholic document, and so you had better hope that Tradition is valid because that is the source of Sacred Scripture.

The source of sacred scripture is God.

2Tim.3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

No, it makes it part of Sacred Scripture which itself does not claim to be the sole authority.

Jn.6 is part of the bible alone which makes it part of scripture alone, SS

No. It means you will need some help in finding it. And the help is the Catholic Church, the only authoritative interpreter of its own document, the Bible.

Again the bible is God’s document and what part of it do you need interpreted?

 

[prochrist1]

You will not find the word “Sola Scriptura” in the bible of course, it is dumb to think it is found there, it is a term used by mainly Catholics to prove that “protestants” are heretics.

The only instance that we have that is for %100 sure is that the bible was inspired by God because he said so!

 

[exnihilo]

Ok, are you saying there is something that we need for our salvation that is in your sacred tradition that is not contained in scripture?

Since the scripture itself says that not everything Jesus did is written in it then tradition might contain truths not in the Bible. I cant answer the necessary to our salvation aspect. But it would be good to know as much as possible truth about Christ. Not to mention I dont know of any branch of Christianity that does not in practice rely on an appeal to tradition.

Again the bible is God’s document and what part of it do you need interpreted?

I need the whole thing interpreted. Other than very poor, rusty Latin I cant read any of the ancient languages.

I love the language in the King James Bible. But I believe some English words from the time of the writing have changed significantly in their meaning. Thus if you were to go by the strict language of that Bible you would come up with the opposite meaning.

Writing is an imperfect way of communicating an idea.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Since the scripture itself says that not everything Jesus did is written in it then tradition might contain truths not in the Bible. I cant answer the necessary to our salvation aspect.

What would be an example of a truth contained in tradition that is not in the bible

But it would be good to know as much as possible truth about Christ.

Throughout His public ministry Jesus walked in the area around Jerusalem and around Galilee. In some of these towns Jesus went in He healed pretty much everyone in the town It would be rather redundant and superfluous to chronicle all these miracles don’t you think?

Not to mention I dont know of any branch of Christianity that does not in practice rely on an appeal to tradition.

“Rely on an appeal to tradition” for what?

I need the whole thing interpreted. Other than very poor, rusty Latin I cant read any of the ancient languages.

I wasn’t talking about languages. That has already been done. I was talking of textual meaning.

I love the language in the King James Bible. But I believe some English words from the time of the writing have changed significantly in their meaning.

For instance?

Thus if you were to go by the strict language of that Bible you would come up with the opposite meaning.

Opposite from what?

Writing is an imperfect way of communicating an idea.

What is a perfect way?

 

[exnihilo]

What would be an example of a truth contained in tradition that is not in the bible

I would say meaning and understanding.

Throughout His public ministry Jesus walked in the area around Jerusalem and around Galilee. In some of these towns Jesus went in He healed pretty much everyone in the town It would be rather redundant and superfluous to chronicle all these miracles don’t you think?

Some sayings and stories in one Gospel are told in another. So the Gospels themselves have redundancy. The Bible can be and is redundant. Furthermore if the Gospel is sufficient itself to understanding then the Epistles are redundant.

“Rely on an appeal to tradition” for what?

For everything. No church does something different every week. All churches rely on some tradition of understanding to form their basis of beliefs. The traditional beliefs and customs of a denomination are what makes that a denomination.

I wasn’t talking about languages. That has already been done. I was talking of textual meaning.

For instance?

Opposite from what?

What is a perfect way?

The point is without someone to have interpreted the Bible from its original language you would have absolutely no way of knowing what it contains. You rely on a human interpreter. That interpreter might have already done the work but that does not change your dependence on him.

Regarding specifically what word means the opposite I forget. I tried a quick Google search but could not find the word I was looking for. But I’m quite sure that one such word exists.

Luke 10:41 Jesus tells Martha that she is careful. Careful here does not mean avoiding mishap. It means she is full of care or anxious. If you just read the KJV you’d likely be puzzled or get the wrong idea.

Direct revelation would be perfect I think. Short of that humans being imperfect everything human is imperfect. God may have inspired the writers or literally dictated the Holy Scripture. But it is still received through imperfect human senses and mental faculties. Verbal and written communication will be imperfect to express the nature of God. Most people who read the Bible also read other people’s commentary on it. If reading it by yourself was sufficient then there would be no need for that commentary. For that matter there would be no need for teaching through preaching.

 

[mackbrislawn]

And that is what people think as well. I’m not draggin Jews in the middle of our Christian faith…sins.

My point is as follows.

Have you heard of Pavlov’s dog experiment? nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/pavlov/readmore.html

He rang a bell each time he fed a dog.
The dog salivated at the sight of the food.
He did it so many times that when he rang the bell, even without the food the dog salivated.

It’s called 'conditioning".

Have you ever seen an abused dog? The dog lives in fear and trembles at the sight of a human that acts aggressively. I’ve had several pets in my past that were formerly abused before we took care of them.

I also know abused people. People react similarly and require constant care and encouragement to help them overcome their fears. Some people never overcome them, others find strength through the help of God. Some find holy people that help them work through their issues. The historical facts remain, whether good of bad. Understanding that history is what helps when the facts are disclosed properly or at least in a way to convey the message that people are sinful and God is merciful. We place far too much trust in people, even holy men and women. God is the center of all things. The Church is not what’s evil, it’s the people within the Church that are sinners. We say that the Church is a hospital for sinners. As patients within this hospital, we must try to be compassionate towards those that are not Catholic and try our best to convey God’s Love and Mercy as best we can and apologize for those that have failed to show Christ’s Love.

The history of the factual Church is what brought me home. I was given all the over exagerated history and it took learning the real history that helped me understand it better. After many years in a fundamentalist faith I learned that the same issues are there as well. So it made me realize I was running for the wrong reasons and that is why I am Catholic today. Only I stand by the “teachings of the Church”, not of man. There are so many heretical Catholics out there that people must be careful what they believe when learning outside the official teaching of the Church. I was NOT speaking ill of the Church, only trying to convey the idea of my own experience and understanding. The Church is wonderful. Most of the religious and clergy are great people. But there have been enough to create doubt in some or many. We must learn to convey the truth in love in context. Historically speaking life was very harsh during those times I mentioned. The government was also full of misguided folks that sometimes abused their power, i.e., Spanish Inquisition. The Church was the safe haven for those suffering back then.

You’re right. The Church isn’t to be judged simply from some bad people and bad history. Since most people don’t judge the ancient Hebrew religion in that way, why Catholicism?

 

[mackbrislawn]

The only instance that we have that is for %100 sure is that the bible was inspired by God because he said so!

I see.

But, of course, that still leaves the question, how do we know what the bible is?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I will concede that in an aliterate/preliterate society oral teaching is very important. But doesn’t there have to be more to it, when such an effort was made so that a previously aliterate society could access the writings? Or the effort that went into making the medieval handwritten copies of the Bible? I guess I don’t see the connection between the oral teachings and the idea that it should be at all important to reduce at least part of them to writing (given that the first are and will remain uncorrupted, which I understand to be the Catholic position). I understand the first is important, but how do we get from the first to the second, and at what point and why did the second start assuming importance?

Maybe the shift to (nearly) universal literacy in my part of the world is tilting my perspective in this area. Perhaps it is tilting the entire mentality that is behind SS.

As we know, all the initial Christian proclamation was oral. As you mentioned, in an aliterate/preliterate society, oral teaching is the only possible way. But even in a society that is literate, oral teaching may still be required, because of the absence of literature to read. That is, books were copied by hand, and so biblical manuscripts were very scarce, and would not be possessed by the people themselves. The only way the people could access scripture would be through someone else who did have a copy of scripture. It would be real aloud to them.

So, when alphabets were invented, and scripture translated into the new language, it wasn’t really for the people or the society to read themselves, but for the benefit of the missionary who would preach from the newly translated scripture.

When the medieval manuscripts were copied, the copies would be placed in the hands of a congregation, a local church, for its use. I don’t think the intent of copying was so that individuals could have their own copies, but that so the various churches and dioceses could have scripture. A copy of scripture was immensely expensive.

Scripture became important because it was a tool given to the Church for use in its missionary efforts. Scripture also provided a link to the apostles, because the “memoirs of the apostles” would be read at the early Christian worship services. The Jews always read scripture in their synagogues, so the early Christians copied that practice in theirs.

You can see how to begin with, the only way the people could learn about Jesus and about the gospel was through the Church. That was the function of the Church, to go out and preach. The people had access to scripture only through the Church.

Not so today. Today in this country everybody can read, and anybody can have a complete copy of scripture for dirt cheap. Nobody needs to go to church anymore to hear scripture. That’s why the “Jesus yes, church no” mentality can take hold in modern times. But that isn’t the God-given way. The Gideons place bibles in every hotel room, so an untaught person can pick it up and read it.

But, doesn’t 2Peter 3:16 warn against untaught people reading scripture and twisting it to their own destruction?

 

[Zirconia]

As we know, all the initial Christian proclamation was oral. As you mentioned, in an aliterate/preliterate society, oral teaching is the only possible way. But even in a society that is literate, oral teaching may still be required, because of the absence of literature to read. That is, books were copied by hand, and so biblical manuscripts were very scarce, and would not be possessed by the people themselves. The only way the people could access scripture would be through someone else who did have a copy of scripture. It would be real aloud to them.

Fair enough, given that until recently, literacy was far from universal, and in some literate societies books are few and far between. Even in a largely literate society, some people simply do not learn the best by reading, and of course there will always be a sizable non-literate group–young children. Of course we need oral teaching (as well as other forms of teaching, such as stained glass, icons, the liturgy, church architecture, and the like). Please don’t think I’m denigrating the value of any of these.

So, when alphabets were invented, and scripture translated into the new language, it wasn’t really for the people or the society to read themselves, but for the benefit of the missionary who would preach from the newly translated scripture.

Could you clarify? Of course a missionary would need to learn the local language to instruct the people. But why go to the further step of introducing literacy? Or are you saying that such a written language was ecclesiastical in nature, and had nothing to do with anyone else who might read it? In this connection, I find it interesting that St. Ulfililas
left out the book of Kings in the Visigothic translation, because he thought it was too warlike for the Visigoths. If it was only intended for the missionary, why would this matter?

When the medieval manuscripts were copied, the copies would be placed in the hands of a congregation, a local church, for its use. I don’t think the intent of copying was so that individuals could have their own copies, but that so the various churches and dioceses could have scripture. A copy of scripture was immensely expensive.

Naturally. I believe they were so expensive that only churches and dioceses could afford them at that time.

Scripture became important because it was a tool given to the Church for use in its missionary efforts. Scripture also provided a link to the apostles, because the “memoirs of the apostles” would be read at the early Christian worship services. The Jews always read scripture in their synagogues, so the early Christians copied that practice in theirs.

You can see how to begin with, the only way the people could learn about Jesus and about the gospel was through the Church. That was the function of the Church, to go out and preach. The people had access to scripture only through the Church.

By necessity, yes.

Not so today. Today in this country everybody can read, and anybody can have a complete copy of scripture for dirt cheap. Nobody needs to go to church anymore to hear scripture. That’s why the “Jesus yes, church no” mentality can take hold in modern times. But that isn’t the God-given way. The Gideons place bibles in every hotel room, so an untaught person can pick it up and read it.

But, doesn’t 2Peter 3:16 warn against untaught people reading scripture and twisting it to their own destruction?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of translating the Bible (or things such as the liturgy) into the vernacular? I know this has been a sore point before–I have heard plenty of times from the misinformed that the Church does not want people reading it. This can’t be true–and the Church obviously sees the Scripture as important (which was part of the point I was trying to make about all the time and effort the Church went to to make sure it was preserved and its information spread to others , especially in the Middle Ages). But if the risk of having an untaught person reading it is that high, are translations into the vernacular really a good thing?

BTW, I’m probably not the best person to be defending SS on here, since I see much of value in and have benefited greatly from practices that are not explicitly included in the Bible. In fact, I am mainly trying to reconcile the idea that the Church could get along just fine with Tradition and without the Scriptures with the fact that it was the same Church that went to such heroic lengths (as in the Middle Ages) to preserve them.

 

[patricius79]

JonNC;8020973.....:

I’m very strong on faith alone, and I like the JDDJ.

The phrase is irrelevent. The teaching, that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, and not by works, is there. It is also there that a faith that lacks works is not a saving, but a dead faith. A saving faith is a faith that works through love.

yes, it sounds like Luther was much better in his understanding of “faith alone” than Calvin and Melancthon who invented the oral tradition of forensic justification

Scripture does not speak of an intermediate state/place for purgation, though purgation does occur.

how can you show that this sentence is deduced logically from Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

how can you show that this sentence is deduced logically from Scripture?

1. Biblical Background
2. No biblical text uses the word “purgatory,” but various passages state or suggest that only the pure or holy will enter the presence of God. Jesus says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Mt. 5:8). The seer of Revelation says that nothing unclean will enter the heavenly Jerusalem (21:27), but those who have washed their robes (in the blood of Christ; cf.7:14) will have the right to enter it (22:14). They will see God’s face (22:4). At the final union of the church with Christ, the church is presented as a bride dressed in pure linen, symbolizing the righteous deeds of the saints (19:8). The author of 1 John declares that “when [Jesus] is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure” (3:2-3). The author of Hebrews calls on his readers to pursue the holiness “without which no one will see the Lord” (12:14), holiness that results from purification in Christ (9:13-14; 10:10)

This, from the recent joint Lutheran / Catholic document:

usccb.org/seia/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life.pdf

Jon