If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

This was truly an excellent link! Many thanks for providing it.

The meat of the nut, at least to my understanding lies here:

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which works by charity then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

The idea of this disagreement hinging on the use of language more than the concepts of needing Faith, Hope and Charity (alone… ) was earth-shaking to me.

Thanks again and God bless

My initial response to the objector is the misunderstanding, as I see it, that Catholics overemphasize works - believeing Catholics think one can save himself by works. I’m not seeing that from what I read. That said, I think it has been an issue in the past, at least among the laity.
OTOH, Lutherans have to be careful not to de-emphasize the role of good works in the life of the regenerate Christian.

I think the article points to one issue between us: that being how we use the term “justification”. If one adds to my belief that we are justified by faith alone, the clear truth that, as Luther said, there is no justification without sanctification, then you can see the parallels. Catholics speak of justification as a process. Lutherans speak of justification continued by sanctification. So, while a Catholic says justification includes both faith and works, a Lutheran says justification by faith, which works in love (sanctification).

While we’re sharing , let me know what you think of this by James Akin:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

Akin seems to have a decent understanding of the Lutheran SF, when he speaks of it as a Galatians 5 faith, or a formed faith, a faith working in love.

Jon

 

[John1]

Hi, John 1,

What specifically are you asking about?

God bless

Well, I realize that the Bible, as well as the Catholic Church, says that we should hold both tradition and scripture with equal regard, and not one over another. I know that there are some traditions that can be backed-up by scripture while there are others that cannot. I am aware that certain traditions like kneeling to accept the Eucharist, adoration of Mary as a co-redemptrix, the latin mass, being called “Christian”, etc., have been changed, added, or complelety done away with throughout the history of the Church. It just seems like traditions are more likely to be corrupted by human intervention, especially traditions which cannot be found in specifically in the Bible. Basically there are three that must always agree, Church authority, the Bible, and sacred tradition. If any of the three do not agree, then any doctrine or practice formulated should be considered corrupt. I think that if anyone or anything tried to add another book to the Bible, it would be righty rejected, unless ofcourse if it was God himself.

 

[Vince1022]

Considering Matthew wrote the Gospel in Aramaic, that is why.

That is an opinion, not Catholic teaching, and one denied by most scholars…i.e. a minority opinion. For what it’s worth.

 

[Vince1022]

Well, I realize that the Bible, as well as the Catholic Church, says that we should hold both tradition and scripture with equal regard, and not one over another. I know that there are some traditions that can be backed-up by scripture while there are others that cannot. I am aware that certain traditions like kneeling to accept the Eucharist, adoration of Mary as a co-redemptrix, the latin mass, being called “Christian”, etc., have been changed, added, or complelety done away with throughout the history of the Church. It just seems like traditions are more likely to be corrupted by human intervention, especially traditions which cannot be found in specifically in the Bible. Basically there are three that must always agree, Church authority, the Bible, and sacred tradition. If any of the three do not agree, then any doctrine or practice formulated should be considered corrupt. I think that if anyone or anything tried to add another book to the Bible, it would be righty rejected, unless ofcourse if it was God himself.

Mary as co-redemptorix is not Catholic tradition.

The Bible was composed by humans, so human error is as present in the Bible as it is in Tradition.

Tradition, and God’s revelation, existed prior to the Bible.

 

[John1]

Mary as co-redemptorix is not Catholic tradition.

The Bible was composed by humans, so human error is as present in the Bible as it is in Tradition.

Tradition, and God’s revelation, existed prior to the Bible.

Hi Vince,

The Catholic Catechism for adults says that Mary is Christ’s associate in Redemption.

The Catholic Catechism says that God is the Author of Sacred Scripture and the Church accepts by faith that the entirity of the Old and New testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit and we must acknowledge that the Bible firmly faithfully, and without error teach the Truth.

Some of the traditions existed prior to the “Bible” as we have it today. There were some traditions from the Old Testament that were stopped or changed with the advent of Christ. There were some traditions, mentioned in the New Testament, that are not practiced.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John1,

You have a lot here … so, let me address each item as best I can…

Well, I realize that the Bible, as well as the Catholic Church, says that we should hold both tradition and scripture with equal regard, and not one over another.

True. Now, what I would recommend is that you read over the remaining part of your post and see how you attempt to discredit this statement or undermine its meaning.Here is a link you may find helpful: scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

I know that there are some traditions that can be backed-up by scripture while there are others that cannot.

As I understand equality of both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition is that having Scripture ‘back up’ Tradition is not necessary and sets the stage for what happens when Scripture is silent.

For example, the Canon itself is not part of Scripture in the sense that one of the Holy Writers, after having written his inspired book… went and wrote a Table of Contents, too! We have the Canon - the knowledge that the works contained in the Bible are teh Inspired Word of God and are without error - from Apostolic Tradition and from the Magisterium. In reality, we did not have a “Bible” as we understand it today (both OT & NT) until about 400AD. During the early days of the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) there were multiple murderous persecutions throughout the Roman Empire. The “Bible” did not hold these early Catholics together because it did not exist as such. Yes, there were the inspired wirtings - but, there were also some un-inspired ones pened by Gnostics and those who would try and destroy the Truth of Christ. How was the average person who wanted to believe in Christ to know which book was inspired and which one was not? It was Apostolic Tradition and the very young Magisterium that held the Catholic Faith together.

If something is going to unravel - it will usually fall part in its early stages - like the second and third generation Christian. One could always say that those who were physically following Christ were just caught up in something and went to their death based on delusional thinking! But, for the next generation to give up their lives… and then the next generation…? People had to believe in Christ and this belief was provided by the Church - and not the “Bible”. I am not ‘picking’ on the “Bible” - just merely showing you that this Book has a very specific history that can be traced in time. Look at those early followers of “The Way” that Saul of Tarsus was pesecuting (Acts 22:4). These people were being murdered because of their belief in Christ before virtually any of the NT was written! Here is a link you may find helpful: newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

I am aware that certain traditions like kneeling to accept the Eucharist, adoration of Mary as a co-redemptrix, the latin mass, being called “Christian”, etc., have been changed, added, or complelety done away with throughout the history of the Church. It just seems like traditions are more likely to be corrupted by human intervention, especially traditions which cannot be found in specifically in the Bible.

Here is an excellent example of subordinating Apostolic Tradition to Scripture. According to you Apostolic Traditions, “…are more likely to be corrupted…” than Scripture - and this totally disregards that God is the Author of Both! If Christ took the time and effort to set up His Church (Matt 16:18) and that He had more to tell us but we could not bear it now… (John 16:12) and that He promised that the Holy Spirt would guide His Church (John 16:13) - why do you think He would allow it to fall into error? Please remember, when the Holy Spirit came to those gathered in the locked room on that First Pentecost Sunday, He provided multiple Gifts - BUT - He did not deliver a “Book”!

Basically there are three that must always agree, Church authority, the Bible, and sacred tradition. If any of the three do not agree, then any doctrine or practice formulated should be considered corrupt. I think that if anyone or anything tried to add another book to the Bible, it would be righty rejected, unless ofcourse if it was God himself.

Well, here is one you may want to think about… In Col 4:16, Paul identifies a letter he wrote to the church of the Laodiceans - but, it was (and has been) never found!

"And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea."

Now, people are always looking for archilogical treasures. What would happen if this ‘lost espistle’ were found - would it be put into the Canon? No. The Canon is closed. There is nothing needful for salvation that is not already in the Bible. And, what this means is that the Bible gives clear direction that the Catholic Church is in charge of guiding all of manking to Christ - becaue this is the reason Christ established the Church. It is not a Book that does this - for who will interpret the Book? For the 20,000+ Protestant denominations that claim they can interpret the Bible - their numbers speak for the disharmony and chaos such an answer brings!

God bless

 

[John1]

Hi, John1,

You have a lot here … so, let me address each item as best I can…

Well, here is one you may want to think about… In Col 4:16, Paul identifies a letter he wrote to the church of the Laodiceans - but, it was (and has been) never found!

"And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea."

Now, people are always looking for archilogical treasures. What would happen if this ‘lost espistle’ were found - would it be put into the Canon? No. The Canon is closed. There is nothing needful for salvation that is not already in the Bible. And, what this means is that the Bible gives clear direction that the Catholic Church is in charge of guiding all of manking to Christ - becaue this is the reason Christ established the Church. It is not a Book that does this - for who will interpret the Book? For the 20,000+ Protestant denominations that claim they can interpret the Bible - their numbers speak for the disharmony and chaos such an answer brings!

God bless

Hi Tom,

No need for vain condescension. I was making the observation that the oral traditions seem to change over time, while the Inspired Scripture does not. Our understanding of the Holy Scriptures is made more complete through the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The history of the Universal or Catholic Church, all the church councils, the separation of East and West, Constantine, the Reformation, etc. stands as evidence that there has never been a lot of harmony in the Church. The Pope made it clear in Vatican II that the Holy Spirit was evident in some of the churches of the separated bretheren. Jesus Christ and the Apostles frequently referred to passages from Old Testament Scriptures, indicating that they did have a complilation of Inspired writings. The Church leaders that came together and finally decided on the “Bible” as we have it today, were all considered part of the Catholic Church even though they didn’t always agree. Just from reading the Bible we can see that there was a lot of disharmony in the early Church. When the Eastern and Western branches of the Church separated, neither were separating themselves from Christ. When the Reformers separated from what they viewed as a corrupted system, they were not separating themselves from Christ. The Catholic Church implies that only the Magestirium is lead by the Holy Spirit while the Bible clearly says that all believers will receive the Holy Spirit. the followers of Christ, the Church, was given a name according to Inspired writing and it was “Christian”, not “Catholic”, and we should be proud to be called by that name…(I didn’t say that, Peter did.)

 

[Vince1022]

Hi Vince,

The Catholic Catechism for adults says that Mary is Christ’s associate in Redemption.

Sure. Ok. Just not “co-Redemptrix”

The Catholic Catechism says that God is the Author of Sacred Scripture and the Church accepts by faith that the entirity of the Old and New testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit and we must acknowledge that the Bible firmly faithfully, and without error teach the Truth.

Yes of course God is the author. Humans are also authors. God works through humans. Yes of course all Scripture is inspired, and true. That doesn’t contradict anything I’ve posted.

Some of the traditions existed prior to the “Bible” as we have it today. There were some traditions from the Old Testament that were stopped or changed with the advent of Christ. There were some traditions, mentioned in the New Testament, that are not practiced.

Yes of course. While at the same time, as you noted, God authored Scripture and all Scripture is true and inspired. Right?

 

[Vince1022]

There is nothing needful for salvation that is not already in the Bible.

I am not sure that coheres with Catholic teaching. The Bible is not the ultimate source for salvation (or any matters regarding faith) for Catholics. Only Christ (God) is.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Vince,

One of the problems with English as a language is that you are really only allowed to have one thought per sentence - try adding more and you get a run-on sentence at best … or just confusion and misunderstanding.

The one sentence you lifted was not all that I said.

Here it is in a more complete form:

There is nothing needful for salvation that is not already in the Bible. And, what this means is that the Bible gives clear direction that the Catholic Church is in charge of guiding all of manking to Christ - becaue this is the reason Christ established the Church. It is not a Book that does this - for who will interpret the Book?
In my opinion, this is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church - unless you have a source that would say other-wise. Until then, I will stand by everything I said.

God bless

I am not sure that coheres with Catholic teaching. The Bible is not the ultimate source for salvation (or any matters regarding faith) for Catholics. Only Christ (God) is.

 

[Vince1022]

Hi, Vince,

One of the problems with English as a language is that you are really only allowed to have one thought per sentence - try adding more and you get a run-on sentence at best … or just confusion and misunderstanding.

The one sentence you lifted was not all that I said.

Here it is in a more complete form:

There is nothing needful for salvation that is not already in the Bible. And, what this means is that the Bible gives clear direction that the Catholic Church is in charge of guiding all of manking to Christ - becaue this is the reason Christ established the Church. It is not a Book that does this - for who will interpret the Book?
In my opinion, this is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church - unless you have a source that would say other-wise. Until then, I will stand by everything I said.

God bless

Thanks! Appreciate your clarification. You’re right, and it’s not only the language but this medium that makes clear communications difficult. I appreciate your clarification.

I still am uncomfortable with the statement that there is nothing needful for salvation that is not already in the Bible. If for no other reason–salvation was possible before the Bible…yes?

And, as the Catholic Church acknowledged, salvation is also possible for those outside the Church (see CCC 846-848).

Anyway…I may indeed have misread what you meant, and if so, sorry. Thanks again for the clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

diggerdomer;7228368:

The trust is not in the Catholic Church, but in the entire Christian tradition.QUOTE]

The entire Christian Tradition{ Truth} exists in the Catholic Church, and is the body of Christ, other eccliasial cummunities have some traditions{Truths} acceptable to Christ, without a doubt, just as the catechism states.

God Bless
onenow1

The Orthodox faith community is recognized as “church” and not simply “ecclesial community” by the Catholic Church.