I realized last night Sola Scriptura isn't true

[spoiltvictorian]

The Bible never says it, not even II Tim. 3:16 - only that Scripture is sufficient to teach about salvation.

The authority of the Apostles came before anything in the NT was written down.

The way the Fathers write, instead of “Scripture alone” it seems it should be something like “no Scripture rejected.” Even Martin Luther seems to have been saying that at one point.

Anyway, it really hit me hard. I had a lot of weird dreams last night. This morning I read a lot of Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura and they were disappointing. Feels like when I started to suspect believer’s baptism of being a recent innovation.

 

[mothom]

I’ll have to study this subject some more. I come from a Pentecostal background. Pentecostals believe in Sola Scriptura - I think. But, I can’t help but wonder if their belief in Sola Scriptura is contradicted by their belief in the gifts of prophecy, tongues and interpretation of tongues.

 

[sambos671]

The Bible never says it, not even II Tim. 3:16 - only that Scripture is sufficient to teach about salvation.

The authority of the Apostles came before anything in the NT was written down.

The way the Fathers write, instead of “Scripture alone” it seems it should be something like “no Scripture rejected.” Even Martin Luther seems to have been saying that at one point.

Anyway, it really hit me hard. I had a lot of weird dreams last night. This morning I read a lot of Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura and they were disappointing. Feels like when I started to suspect believer’s baptism of being a recent innovation.

What is LCMS? When you study church history you do get to question the validity of many protestant positions such as Sola Scriptura. Also Sola Fide. The weird dreams indicate that you’re troubled by your findings.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

LCMS = Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

mothom: Yes, AG deny Sola Scriptura because of their prophecies. They’ll say so outright if they’re scholarly (rare.)

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

mothom: Yes, AG deny Sola Scriptura because of their prophecies. They’ll say so outright if they’re scholarly (rare.)

Interesting. You wouldn’t have a link or anything where you got this information would you? Or did this come from word of mouth?

God bless

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Interesting. You wouldn’t have a link or anything where you got this information would you? Or did this come from word of mouth?

God bless

It’s all word of mouth – usually the inescapable contradiction must be presented to them before they’ll admit it. Probably anyone who wrote it down on a web page has or will shortly have left that denomination.

 

[sambos671]

It’s all word of mouth – usually the inescapable contradiction must be presented to them before they’ll admit it. Probably anyone who wrote it down on a web page has or will shortly have left that denomination.

A better question for the AoG is whether they believe cannon is closed.

 

[jenlovesyu]

The Bible never says it, not even II Tim. 3:16 - only that Scripture is sufficient to teach about salvation.

The authority of the Apostles came before anything in the NT was written down.

The way the Fathers write, instead of “Scripture alone” it seems it should be something like “no Scripture rejected.” Even Martin Luther seems to have been saying that at one point.

Anyway, it really hit me hard. I had a lot of weird dreams last night. This morning I read a lot of Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura and they were disappointing. Feels like when I started to suspect believer’s baptism of being a recent innovation.

I had this experience about 5 or 6 months ago. I am sorry to hear you are distressed but perhaps God is guiding you to a deeper understanding of Christianity? This is something I read at Catholic Answers actually that made me realize the truth about Sola Scriptura: catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

I will pray for you, God bless you in your journey

 

[Hisalone]

The Bible never says it, not even II Tim. 3:16 - only that Scripture is sufficient to teach about salvation.

The authority of the Apostles came before anything in the NT was written down.

The way the Fathers write, instead of “Scripture alone” it seems it should be something like “no Scripture rejected.” Even Martin Luther seems to have been saying that at one point.

Anyway, it really hit me hard. I had a lot of weird dreams last night. This morning I read a lot of Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura and they were disappointing. Feels like when I started to suspect believer’s baptism of being a recent innovation.

So you agree with most Catholics that tradition is preeminent over scripture?

The integrity of “the authority of the Apostles” is ever bit that of the quaran.

 

[sambos671]

So you agree with most Catholics that tradition is preeminent over scripture?

The integrity of “the authority of the Apostles” is ever bit that of the quaran.

No Catholic would ever say it. No educated one that is. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition work hand in hand or as a two headed principle working together to instruct on truth. Sacred Tradition will not condtradict Scripture nor would scripture contradict Sacred Tradition. Its clearly pointed out in the CCC.

 

[ralphinal]

So you agree with most Catholics that tradition is preeminent over scripture?

The integrity of “the authority of the Apostles” is ever bit that of the quaran.

Is it not possible that there is a third option?

Before the Scriptures were written, where was the authority?

WHo decided which Scriptures were acceptable as they were written?

Do you not think that the Apostles had say over what was treated as scripture?

 

[Hisalone]

No Catholic would ever say it. No educated one that is. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition work hand in hand or as a two headed principle working together to instruct on truth. Sacred Tradition will not condtradict Scripture nor would scripture contradict Sacred Tradition. Its clearly pointed out in the CCC.

You are correct none would say however have you heard actions speak louder than words? It is that in practice you place tradition over scripture.

 

[mothom]

The AofG do believe the cannon is closed.

 

[sambos671]

You are correct none would say however have you heard actions speak louder than words? It is that in practice you place tradition over scripture.

You mean the laity I presume. Many lay members don’t know their own faith just as many protestants don’t know theirs. It doesn’t mean its not what the church teaches. Those who don’t know should listen if not they are not practicing their faith fully. Just like a protestant who never opened a bible wouldn’t be.

 

[sambos671]

The AofG do believe the cannon is closed.

Well, that is something. What need of all the prophets then?

 

[spoiltvictorian]

You are correct none would say however have you heard actions speak louder than words? It is that in practice you place tradition over scripture.

Hisalone, that’s something I’m still confused about – who is and who is not faithfully receiving the true teachings of Christ’s Church. Unless I’m missing something, Peter’s chair wasn’t always so dominant over the other patriarchs.

 

[NathanCushman]

Yeah, that’s the major thing that divides the Eastern Orthodox Churches from the Catholic Church. But, if you notice, John Paul II and Benedict XVI seem to be tilted in the direction of somewhat more autonomy for bishops.

Could you give any examples of Tradition trumping Scripture, by the way?

Also, there’s a clear irony, since Sola Scriptura isn’t clearly Biblical, or even implied. So that’s a definite, but strange, example of Protestant tradition trumping scripture, to (oddly enough) elevate scripture past the reach of those assigned in Scripture to interpret it.

This bizarre paradox which rips scriptural interpretation from the hands of those whom Christ entrusted the responsibility then, instead, puts it in the hands of individuals who can’t even translate the scriptures themselves, thus leaving them in the impossible position of needing to select a correct translation (with the correct books included) without being able to trust the translators, because they have no authority.

Ah, to trust no-one but ourselves… how American, how un-Christian.

 

[Callin]

You are correct none would say however have you heard actions speak louder than words? It is that in practice you place tradition over scripture.

In Scott Hahn’s book Reasons to Believe there was an entire section on how the Mass is biblical, from the songs and readings to even hand gestures. There was an entire list of the stuff!

Like a previous poster said, tradition and scripture go hand in hand.

 

[po18guy]

So you agree with most Catholics that tradition is preeminent over scripture?

If you are going to see the truth, ya gotta lose the stereoetypes…

Rather than write down everything, Christ chose Apostles, right? (John 15:!6) He taught them, right? (Luke 11:1 and all Gospels) He then sent them the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, right? (John 20:22) He did not write a single word of Scripture, right? (John 8:7 the only record of Christ writing).

We thank the Lord that we have scripture preserved for us, but the Church came before the NT Scriptures. The Catholic Church then produced the bible, in both OT and NT canons. So, your argument is???

 

[po18guy]

You are correct none would say however have you heard actions speak louder than words? It is that in practice you place tradition over scripture.

Please provide examples of what you allege. All Scripture IS the oral tradition - written for you to read. But, the oral tradition goes way beyond Scripture. It has to, according to John 20:30 and 21:25.

If you somehow doubt that the Catholic Church relies on Scripture for the Mass, feast your eyes:

wctc.net/~mudndirt/Scripture%20in%20mass.htm

Next objection…