I really don't get "Sola Scriptura"?

[Wildgraywolf]

c0achmcguirk:

I thought we were all Trinitarians here. If you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that God wrote Scripture–Jesus, of course, being God.

c0ach

If you wanna get technical the only things God Himself wrote with his own “hand” were: 10 Commandments, “the writing on the wall”, and Jesus writing/drawing somthing in the sand. The truth of the matter, when it comes to scriptre, is that God in the person of the Holy Spirit, inspired people to write it. Moses was the first. God didn’t personally write any scripture what-so-ever, but rather scripture was written by those chosen by God and inspired by Him.

 

[Maccabees]

p90:

You haven’t provided any evidence. You just produced the confessions and made my look over them for contradictions. I haven’t found any and you aren’t willing to substantiate your position. For someone who wants to dialogue, why won’t you substantiate your claims?

The point of this thread is to explain Sola Scriptura to others, not to critique it. I would prefer that it remained that way simply because so many Catholics do not understand a primary definition of the doctrine used by so many today. If you want to debate me on my specific definition of Sola Scriptura, I will be willing to do that either in another thread or in PM.

~Matt

The evidene are in the different defintions. I am not going to waste a time teaching a blind person to drive. You fail to read and ponder the difference you look the other way when I give you evidence.
Oh wait you want to start a new thread when I tore apart your pathetic definition of sola scriptura as truth? How convenient. How about reading what I had to say very carefuuly. And give me your honest rebuttle? Honestly Sola Scriptura is not adequate on the subjects I brought up. But you choose to nor respond. You are the biggest example of denial and intellectual dishonesty. And a big waste of time.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

The evidene are in the different defintions. I am not going to waste a time teaching a blind person to drive.

If you don’t desire to substantiate your position, I will reject it as it stands.

Oh wait you want to start a new thread when I tore apart your pathetic definition of sola scriptura as truth? How convenient.

I already said that I am willing to debate you on another thread. Why are you ignoring what I’m writing? Again, I so desire for Catholics to understand Sola Scripture before objecting to it that I don’t want this thread to be occupied with your objections to my definition. If you want, we can carry over what you’ve already written and I can respond to it in a new thread.

~Matt

 

[NewChristian27]

Maccabees:

Yeah sola scriptura was so logical that it took 1500 years for it to be established.

Sometimes it’s necessary to start over and go back to the basics. Isn’t that what Jesus did for the Jews? He tried to show the Pharisees that their focus on laws, tradition and rituals were not going to make them right with God. I think that’s what’s happening now.

I respect tradition, but just because something has become tradition, does that mean it makes you right with God?

 

[Maccabees]

NewChristian27:

Sometimes it’s necessary to start over and go back to the basics. Isn’t that what Jesus did for the Jews? He tried to show the Pharisees that their focus on laws, tradition and rituals were not going to make them right with God. I think that’s what’s happening now.

I respect tradition, but just because something has become tradition, does that mean it makes you right with God?

Well if that’s the case you back to the fathers and apostolic tradition and scripture together. You don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. The fruits of the reformation 30,000 denominations and counting. If it was a ture reformation and not a revoultion you would have unity in the protestant movement but you don’t.
There were reforms in the church at times before the reformation that did not result in the splitting of the church now that was real reform. And Jesus had a problem with tradition of men like the Qorban rule that denied the charity of children to their parents. On the hand he recognized authentic tradtion such as the passover, festival of lights.he recognized oral tradition such as the nazarene tradition and the chair of moses tradition both jesish oral tradition.
THe blanket statements you make are without much though rather stereotypes of the catholic position. Jesus did no establish a church for the gates of hell to destroy it but to continue to be his church with his charims to the end of time.
Apostolic tradition comes in two forms the written and the oral protestants throw out the baby with the bathwater when they disregard the oral. If you read the church councils the fathers refer to the apostolic tradtion handed down to the church then they point the teachings of fathers or prior councils or scripture you need the whole thing for a proper reformation.
If the reforamation worked so well why has it been done 30,000 times? How many new churches and how many refroms till protestants get it right?

 

[NewChristian27]

Maccabees:

Well if that’s the case you back to the fathers and apostolic tradition and scripture together. You don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. The fruits of the reformation 30,000 denominations and counting. If it was a ture reformation and not a revoultion you would have unity in the protestant movement but you don’t.
There were reforms in the church at times before the reformation that did not result in the splitting of the church now that was real reform. And Jesus had a problem with tradition of men like the Qorban rule that denied the charity of children to their parents. On the hand he recognized authentic tradtion such as the passover, festival of lights.he recognized oral tradition such as the nazarene tradition and the chair of moses tradition both jesish oral tradition.
THe blanket statements you make are without much though rather stereotypes of the catholic position. Jesus did no establish a church for the gates of hell to destroy it but to continue to be his church with his charims to the end of time.
Apostolic tradition comes in two forms the written and the oral protestants throw out the baby with the bathwater when they disregard the oral. If you read the church councils the fathers refer to the apostolic tradtion handed down to the church then they point the teachings of fathers or prior councils or scripture you need the whole thing for a proper reformation.
If the reforamation worked so well why has it been done 30,000 times? How many new churches and how many refroms till protestants get it right?

Well, if that’s true, why don’t we keep the Jewish holidays?

 

[Maccabees]

[
](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=13430)NewChristian27%between%

Well, if that’s true, why don’t we keep the Jewish holidays?

Gee your church hasn’t explained this basic concept to you?

I suggest you find a new church. The Catholic Church is a good one.

In short the OT law and observances were a showdow of the fulfillment of the new covenant fulfillment Jesus Christ and his Church.

For example we catholics changed our observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday because Sunday was deemed the Lord’s day , his day of resurrection, the day of new covenant fulfillment. Also to catholics baptism replaced circumcision as the rite to join the people of God. The communion meal or eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover meal, Jesus is the lamb of God who forever takes away the sins of the world he becomes our paschal lamb also it becomes a source for our spiritual meal that was forshadowed when God gave manna to the Jews in the dessert now he gives us Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and divinity in the Eucharistic meal. In many ways cathoicism connects the covenants more explicitly than evangelical Christianity. In Catholicism the new testament fulfillment is always greater than the old testament type. This is not the case in evangelical Christianity.

Thus to celebrate a mere type and lesser fullfillment lets say Passover would be nonsense when you could fulfill that type a greater anti-type with the celebration of the Lord’s supper with Jesus being the paschal lamb we consume in the eucharistic meal not a slaughtered animal. The highest holy day of this fullfillment I am sure you would recognize is Easter the culmination of holy days on our liturgical calender. Like Judaism Catholicism has holy days in her own tradtion of which Chistmas and Easter as most recognizeable. The church calender is a buid up to these holy days. In our view these holyd days represent signficant fullfillments in the history of the chuch. We for example celebrate the birthday of the church Pentacost. Build up Christmas with the season of advent. build up to Easter Lent starting with Ash Wednesday ending with the Triidium of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter.

 

[Maccabees]

This changing of covenant and rites is explained rather well in Hebrews.

This is explained rather well in the book of Hebrews

Hebrews Ch 8

5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."1] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

13When He said, “(26) A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. (27) But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Since the new covenant has blossomed forth from the stump of the old, it is the new that we see bearing fruit. Yet they are both expressions of the same family of God-the old having been fulfilled by the new.

Hebrews Ch 9

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

More support for the old covenant prefigures the new.

Hebrews Ch 10

For the Law, since it has only (1) a shadow of (2) the good things to come and not the very form of things,…

The Old Testament types-prefigurements only- are fulfilled in the New Testament truths:

 

[NewChristian27]

Gee your church hasn’t explained this basic concept to you?

I suggest you find a new church. The Catholic Church is a good one.

In short the OT law and observances were a showdow of the fulfillment of the new covenant fulfillment Jesus Christ and his Church.

For example we catholics changed our observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday because Sunday was deemed the Lord’s day , his day of resurrection, the day of new covenant fulfillment. Also to catholics baptism replaced circumcision as the rite to join the people of God. The communion meal or eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover meal, Jesus is the lamb of God who forever takes away the sins of the world he becomes our paschal lamb also it becomes a source for our spiritual meal that was forshadowed when God gave manna to the Jews in the dessert now he gives us Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and divinity in the Eucharistic meal. In many ways cathoicism connects the covenants more explicitly than evangelical Christianity. In Catholicism the new testament fulfillment is always greater than the old testament type. This is not the case in evangelical Christianity.

Thus to celebrate a mere type and lesser fullfillment lets say Passover would be nonsense when you could fulfill that type a greater anti-type with the celebration of the Lord’s supper with Jesus being the paschal lamb we consume in the eucharistic meal not a slaughtered animal. The highest holy day of this fullfillment I am sure you would recognize is Easter the culmination of holy days on our liturgical calender. Like Judaism Catholicism has holy days in her own tradtion of which Chistmas and Easter as most recognizeable. The church calender is a buid up to these holy days. In our view these holyd days represent signficant fullfillments in the history of the chuch. We for example celebrate the birthday of the church Pentacost. Build up Christmas with the season of advent. build up to Easter Lent starting with Ash Wednesday ending with the Triidium of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter.

Thank you for the explanation. I guess I can’t help but think that we put too much emphasis on all of this, I think that’s why people turn to Sola Scriptura. Many people have started to define their faith by rituals and that’s not what the Bible teaches us. Now, I’m not saying that any of that is wrong, I just don’t think it should define us as Christians. We shouldn’t place so much importance on it. Does that make sense?

 

[Maccabees]

NewChristian27:

Thank you for the explanation. I guess I can’t help but think that we put too much emphasis on all of this, I think that’s why people turn to Sola Scriptura. Many people have started to define their faith by rituals and that’s not what the Bible teaches us. Now, I’m not saying that any of that is wrong, I just don’t think it should define us as Christians. We shouldn’t place so much importance on it. Does that make sense?

No it makes sense that your an evangelical christian who has taken away the traditions of the apostles and the early christians with tradtions of american evangelicism. Look you can reject the traditions of the apostolic church but you end up with your own made up traditions. You can ignore the interpretations of the faith by popes but you end up making your pastor the pope or worse yet your the pope. Apostolic tradition gave us two things the Bible and the Church the Bible did not fall out of the sky apart from the church nor did our traditions fall out of sky or were merely invented they were passed down from the apsotles to the apostlic fathers to the bishops we have today.

 

[cafengocmy]

RomanRyan1088:

I think the Bible is a very HOLY book. The inspired word of God, but I don’t see how it can be the only rule for some protestant denominations.

Sola Scriptura is the acceptance of only what is written. It means that the Christian has recourse only to the written words in the Bible itself as Truth. Tradition is regarded as a false source. And each man must be his only judge as to the meaning of Scripture. I have not understood how there can be teachers and ministers who can say any more to their flocks than the words from the Bible. Isn’t accepting a preacher’s words about what those Bible words mean deviating from individual judgment? And would it not be learning from tradition? What the preacher says by way of explanation of those Bible words, insofar as it agrees with teachings generally accepted, is tradition. Sola Scriptura, if it is not modified by conventions agreed upon by men, seems to leave no room for preachers, but only for readers, no room for application of Biblical lessons to circumstances not explicitly described in the bible. And where there are conventions agreed upon by men for interpretation of Scripture then that is, in fact, Tradition.

 

[legeo]

Maccabees:

No it makes sense that your an evangelical christian who has taken away the traditions of the apostles and the early christians with tradtions of american evangelicism. Look you can reject the traditions of the apostolic church but you end up with your own made up traditions. You can ignore the interpretations of the faith by popes but you end up making your pastor the pope or worse yet your the pope. Apostolic tradition gave us two things the Bible and the Church the Bible did not fall out of the sky apart from the church nor did our traditions fall out of sky or were merely invented they were passed down from the apsotles to the apostlic fathers to the bishops we have today.

Thank you for your very informed and intelligent posts on this subject; I have learned a lot from this, and I agree totally with your position and comments. Keep on with your good work!

 

[RMP]

Matt,

we understand sola scriptura and what it means. The problem is the word ALONE. Do you understand? many things describing sola scriptura are true somewhat. It is the qualifyer adjective associated with the doctrine that make it invalid to the christian faith. We agree Scripture is infallable, it is inerrent, it is useful, it equips the christian, it teaches, it corrects, but it is NOT ALONE. IT never says it is ALONE either. why dont you understand?

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

no, that is mistaken. It doesn’t mean that we have nothing else to read, or anyone to talk to, but that we -know- that the Bible is from God, we aren’t so sure about what is claimed to be tradition, and if there is disagreement, it is God, not men, who are right.

That is why it is properly Sola Scriptura supra omne. There was a discussion in First Things on this some time ago. A protestant had actually explained this and the Catholics were stunned, saying “you mean -prima- Scriptura, don’t you” and the Protestants were stunned in return. “you mean for five hundred years, you didn’t understand what we were saying???”

 

[Aris]

Wil Peregrin:

no, that is mistaken. It doesn’t mean that we have nothing else to read, or anyone to talk to, but that we -know- that the Bible is from God, we aren’t so sure about what is claimed to be tradition, and if there is disagreement, it is God, not men, who are right.

That is why it is properly Sola Scriptura supra omne. There was a discussion in First Things on this some time ago. A protestant had actually explained this and the Catholics were stunned, saying “you mean -prima- Scriptura, don’t you” and the Protestants were stunned in return. “you mean for five hundred years, you didn’t understand what we were saying???”

because Catholics understand it not as an either or question. It is either the Bible or Tradition that is supreme? Catholics view it as the Bible AND Tradition. They complement one another and one can not be with out the other.

It can not be first in the sense that not all of our beliefs are in black and white. Tradition is meant to be the measuring stick of what belief if from Christ and the Apostles. Take away Tradition and you have the current situation, 30,000 Protestant denominations and counting.

 

[Anonymous_1]

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“And on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

[to Peter]“I pray that your faith is strengthened, so that you can strengthen the faith of your brethren.”

I believe that you could possibly be misinterpreting these above scriptures…The Bible actually does come alive and talk to you. I know that i couldnt have a relationship with God without His word.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Hebrews 4;11-13

By the way the Church isnt a system of buildings and leaders…It is the collective and unified family of saints through the Holy Spirit…Being that we are one body…and no part of the body is more important than another part.

As for Jesus praying for Peter to be strong in faith so that he could be an encouragement to others. Isnt that an example for all of us?

11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong-- 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.

May grace and peace from the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

 

[NewChristian27]

Maccabees:

No it makes sense that your an evangelical christian who has taken away the traditions of the apostles and the early christians with tradtions of american evangelicism. Look you can reject the traditions of the apostolic church but you end up with your own made up traditions. You can ignore the interpretations of the faith by popes but you end up making your pastor the pope or worse yet your the pope. Apostolic tradition gave us two things the Bible and the Church the Bible did not fall out of the sky apart from the church nor did our traditions fall out of sky or were merely invented they were passed down from the apsotles to the apostlic fathers to the bishops we have today.

I think you misunderstood. I’m not rejecting any traditions. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and still respect and honor the traditions. I just think that some people define their faith by these actions, and not by their relationship with God. At least this has been my experience. Some people like their religion handed to them on a platter. “Do X,Y and Z and you’ll get into Heaven.” I guess I just don’t buy into that. Actions alone don’t equal a relationship with God.

My pastor/minister is NOT my Pope. I don’t believe in hierarchy in the church, that is too political and causes too many problems. In fact, I believe just the opposite. I believe it’s the PEOPLE that make up the Church, not the institution of doctrine and laws.

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Aris,
I was trying to explain more clearly the Protestant position, so that you, and even more so, the apologists, might understand it. The second thing that Ut Unam Sint and John 17 require of us, after the decision to love one another, is to understand one another. We use the same words for different things, and different words for the same things. As Chris points out, there are real differences that shouldn’t be swept under the rug, but there is considerably more commonality than has been hitherto supposed.

You are explaining the Catholic position. That too, is a good start.

Now to the rest. Firstly, there are only about 3-7 theological traditions. About what you find in the Catholic church. Aris,
I was trying to explain more clearly the Protestant position, so that you, and even more so, the apologists, might understand it. The second thing that Ut Unam Sint and John 17 require of us, after the decision to love one another, is to understand one another. We use the same words for different things, and different words for the same things. As Chris points out, there are real differences that shouldn’t be swept under the rug, but there is considerably more commonality than has been hitherto supposed.

You are explaining the Catholic position. That too, is a good start.

Now to the rest. Firstly, there are only about 3-7 theological traditions. About what you find in the Catholic church. Then you have the effect of ethnic migrations to the US, regrouping after the modernist debacle, and the tendency of congregations in the Baptist tradition towards autocephaly. But that doesn’t work out to the old canard of 30,000 denominations and counting.

How is it that tradition is more easy to understand than Scripture? Both are in human language. God is perfect, and One Person is the Logos. Would it not be more theologically valid to suppose that God communicates more perfectly in language than men do?Then you have the effect of ethnic migrations to the US, regrouping after the modernist debacle, and the tendency of congregations in the Baptist tradition towards autocephaly. But that doesn’t work out to the old canard of 30,000 denominations and counting.

How is it that tradition is more easy to understand than Scripture? Both are in human language. God is perfect, and One Person is the Logos. Would it not be more theologically valid to suppose that God communicates more perfectly in language than men do?

 

[JPrejean]

Wil Peregrin:

Would it not be more theologically valid to suppose that God communicates more perfectly in language than men do?

This question is so loaded with assumptions that it’s more of an assertion than a question. But I think the answer is obviously “No.” Is there ever any situation in which interactive instruction with a human being is less effective than reading a textbook? I rather doubt it, and in any case, it would clearly be the exception rather than the rule. The most ordinary way to make sure that the meaning of a text is preserved would be to pass down shared experiences in order to serve as referents for concepts in the language (don’t just tell them; show them), which would invariably be more effective than any text, no matter how artful the writing. If every educational system in human history has managed to incorporate that concept, it doesn’t seem like a compliment to God to surmise that He missed it.

 

[p90]

RMP:

Matt,

we understand sola scriptura and what it means.

It is clear from posts on this forum that this is not always the case.

The problem is the word ALONE. Do you understand? many things describing sola scriptura are true somewhat. It is the qualifyer adjective associated with the doctrine that make it invalid to the christian faith. We agree Scripture is infallable, it is inerrent, it is useful, it equips the christian, it teaches, it corrects, but it is NOT ALONE. IT never says it is ALONE either. why dont you understand?

You aren’t being very clear. What are you trying to relate?

~Matt