Is sola Scriptura Infallible? Protestant says yes!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikeledes said:
Since the entire canon is not necessary for salvation and the Old Testament was enough for the Old Testament saints, then we can pretty much nix the entire New Testament or downgrade it from inspired to edifyng. How far are you willing to go to defend Sola Scriptura? Divine Revelation does not have to be directly necessary for salvation.

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Christians are saved by grace through faith.
That means: if I meet someone on the street, tell them the good news, and they sincerely accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and repent of their sins, they are justified and receive salvation by the grace of God.
So at the point of salvation, right there on the street, they are justified through their faith. Just like the criminal on the cross next to Jesus was justified by his statement of faith.
There is no need for them to refer to sacred tradition or sola scriptura for their salvation.
 
newbie1234 said:
Christians are saved by grace through faith.
That means: if I meet someone on the street, tell them the good news, and they sincerely accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and repent of their sins, they are justified and receive salvation by the grace of God.
So at the point of salvation, right there on the street, they are justified through their faith. Just like the criminal on the cross next to Jesus was justified by his statement of faith.
There is no need for them to refer to sacred tradition or sola scriptura for their salvation.
Click to expand...
Newbie, Michael was turning SolaScriptura’s argument on its head.

He was NOT making an assertion that you need “sacred tradition” for salvation!
 
newbie1234 said:
Christians are saved by grace through faith.
That means: if I meet someone on the street, tell them the good news, and they sincerely accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and repent of their sins, they are justified and receive salvation by the grace of God.
So at the point of salvation, right there on the street, they are justified through their faith. Just like the criminal on the cross next to Jesus was justified by his statement of faith.
There is no need for them to refer to sacred tradition or sola scriptura for their salvation.
Click to expand...
And when you tell them about Jesus, what do you appeal to? Where did you get your information from? Was it not from Scripture? Are you saying then that Scripture is not necessary for salvation?

God bless,
Michael
 
mikeledes said:
And when you tell them about Jesus, what do you appeal to? Where did you get your information from? Was it not from Scripture? Are you saying then that Scripture is not necessary for salvation?

God bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Some one told me the Good News at some point,I accepted, then I confirmed it by reading the bible. It is possible for a person to have salvation without ever opening up a bible.
The bible is the unerring Word of God. I have matured in my faith by reading it.
But, it is also entirely possible to grow in sanctification without ever reading the bible.
So, although the bible CAN be used for both justification and sanctification and for every good work(2tim3:16-17), it is not absolutely necessary. Sacred Tradition is not necessary either.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Does anyone have a scripture to support that?
Click to expand...
i’m not sure why you quoted this, but i thought of something when i read it: I have never entered into as much rest with the Lord as when i found & took advantage of the Exposed Blessed Sacrament. Of course, sometimes, when there is a lot of “garbage” in my life (hidden idolatries, etc.), it gets to be a little uncomfortable being in Christ’s holy Presence (truth really does HURT). But once I get over the discomfort (in other words, i surrender & let Jesus heal me), there’s nothing to compare to being there… being there is truly entering into God’s rest… (a uniquely Catholic “thing”).
It’s really disturbing that i was raised Catholic & yet only found out about this precious Gift a few years ago… Why doesn’t the Church teach its teachings better??? Are we afraid we will be stoned by the Protesters?? And/or…???
 
newbie1234 said:
Christians are saved by grace through faith.
That means: if I meet someone on the street, tell them the good news, and they sincerely accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and repent of their sins, they are justified and receive salvation by the grace of God.
So at the point of salvation, right there on the street, they are justified through their faith. Just like the criminal on the cross next to Jesus was justified by his statement of faith.
There is no need for them to refer to sacred tradition or sola scriptura for their salvation.
Click to expand...
Actually, they are saved through baptism which cleanses them from the stain of original sin.
 
Some controversialists claim a need for an infallible interpreter for an infallible Bible therefore requires an infallible student. This shows a serious misunderstanding of the concept of infallibility. The human mind is designed to be able to discern the truth and it usually does. It is not necessary for it to be infallible to do so. The method of trial and error is sufficient. Unfortunately, there are limits to the ability of the human mind to learn the truth. In particular, the mind is strongly influenced by prejudices and presuppositions that may make some conclusions unacceptable. It is also possible to draw incorrect conclusions from fallacious use of the reasoning faculty. One may also draw improper conclusions from partial data. Furthermore, the mind may have problems comprehending those matters the content of which is beyond our immediate experience. Nevertheless, with proper guidance, preparation, and a good source of correct comprehensive information, the human mind is capable of coming to true knowledge without needing to be formally infallible itself.

Infallibility is not a guarantee that one will arrive at the full truth. Instead, it is a guarantee that the individual so endowed will not make any errors in what he says. Students learn from their mistakes. While it would be nice if they got everything right all the time, it is not necessary for them to do so in order to learn the truth. An infallible teacher merely guarantees that the student will not be presented with any erroneous information. The student can then use his intellectual powers to learn correctly what he has been taught. He may make mistakes, but with recourse to an infallible teacher and his natural intelligence, the average person can sort this out to arrive at true knowledge.

We must also draw a distinction between the different types of infallibility. The Bible is a static product. It is a text, not an authority. It cannot interpret itself. It is infallible in content but only when interpreted correctly. It cannot stand on its own. As the old saying goes, “A text without a context is a pretext.” Biblical infallibility is therefore contextual and not self-evident. As such the Bible is only materially infallible.

The Magisterium. on the other hand, is not a static text but a living authority under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. It is dynamic and self-aware. It can respond to questions and because of the special privilege granted to it by God, it cannot err. God is the one who is both the formal and efficient cause of infallibility. This means that when the Magisterium operates in the proper context with the proper power acting on it (i.e., under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit) its statements are always infallible. The Magisterium is therefore the instrumental cause of infallible teaching.

Material infallibility is not sufficient to finally guarantee infallible teaching. You need to apply the proper context (formal cause: the plan of God) with the proper power (efficient cause: superintendence of the Holy Spirit) applied by the proper authority (the instrumental cause: the Magisterium) to obtain the desired end (final cause: true teaching). Once you have that, then the human mind can use its proper powers of discernment to learn the truth.

Some Protestant controversialists claim that the decision of the Catholic to believe in an infallible Magisterium is the equivalent of the individual claiming infallibility for himself. This is not true. If you go to the doctor and he tells you what must be done for your ailment, when you submit to his treatment, you are not declaring your own medical competence. You are recognizing his authority in medical matters and trusting in his judgment. In submitting to the Magisterium, we are deferring to the will of God as he has revealed it to his Church. We are not asserting our infallibility, but rather our faith in God’s promises.

When the Protestant reads his Bible and decides for himself what to believe, he is the one who is asserting his own infallibility because he is not submitting to any authority other than his own interpretation. If some Protestant group wishes to defer authority to its ministers or its confessional statements, it is asserting the infallibility of its ministers or founders over and against that of the historic Church. They often allege that they merely are asserting the infallibility of the Bible, but then we have the problem of settling disputes over discordant interpretations. It is the interpretation whose correctness is being questioned, not the correctness of the text it was based upon. As such, it must be the interpreter who needs to be infallible not the source which he interprets. As we noted in the previous section on perspicuity, it is not always possible to completely understand the biblical text even by the experts. Ultimately, the Protestant system is unworkable.

Quoted from Dr. Art Sippo
 
newbie1234 said:
So, although the bible CAN be used for both justification and sanctification and for every good work(2tim3:16-17), it is not absolutely necessary. Sacred Tradition is not necessary either.
Click to expand...
St. Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2;15,

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (RSV-CE).

Hmmm…:hmmm: It seems Paul gives oral tradition the same authority as the written word.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Some controversialists claim a need for an infallible interpreter for an infallible Bible therefore requires an infallible student. This shows a serious misunderstanding of the concept of infallibility. The human mind is designed to be able to discern the truth and it usually does. It is not necessary for it to be infallible to do so. The method of trial and error is sufficient. Unfortunately, there are limits to the ability of the human mind to learn the truth. In particular, the mind is strongly influenced by prejudices and presuppositions that may make some conclusions unacceptable. It is also possible to draw incorrect conclusions from fallacious use of the reasoning faculty. One may also draw improper conclusions from partial data. Furthermore, the mind may have problems comprehending those matters the content of which is beyond our immediate experience. Nevertheless, with proper guidance, preparation, and a good source of correct comprehensive information, the human mind is capable of coming to true knowledge without needing to be formally infallible itself. /Infallibility is not a guarantee that one will arrive at the full truth. Instead, it is a guarantee that the individual so endowed will not make any errors in what he says. Students learn from their mistakes. While it would be nice if they got everything right all the time, it is not necessary for them to do so in order to learn the truth. An infallible teacher merely guarantees that the student will not be presented with any erroneous information. The student can then use his intellectual powers to learn correctly what he has been taught. He may make mistakes, but with recourse to an infallible teacher and his natural intelligence, the average person can sort this out to arrive at true knowledge.
We must also draw a distinction between the different types of infallibility. The Bible is a static product. It is a text, not an authority. It cannot interpret itself. It is infallible in content but only when interpreted correctly. It cannot stand on its own. As the old saying goes, “A text without a context is a pretext.” Biblical infallibility is therefore contextual and not self-evident. As such the Bible is only materially infallible. /The Magisterium. on the other hand, is not a static text but a living authority under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. It is dynamic and self-aware. It can respond to questions and because of the special privilege granted to it by God, it cannot err. God is the one who is both the formal and efficient cause of infallibility. This means that when the Magisterium operates in the proper context with the proper power acting on it (i.e., under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit) its statements are always infallible. The Magisterium is therefore the instrumental cause of infallible teaching. /Material infallibility is not sufficient to finally guarantee infallible teaching. You need to apply the proper context (formal cause: the plan of God) with the proper power (efficient cause: superintendence of the Holy Spirit) applied by the proper authority (the instrumental cause: the Magisterium) to obtain the desired end (final cause: true teaching). Once you have that, then the human mind can use its proper powers of discernment to learn the truth. /Some Protestant controversialists claim that the decision of the Catholic to believe in an infallible Magisterium is the equivalent of the individual claiming infallibility for himself. This is not true. If you go to the doctor and he tells you what must be done for your ailment, when you submit to his treatment, you are not declaring your own medical competence. You are recognizing his authority in medical matters and trusting in his judgment. In submitting to the Magisterium, we are deferring to the will of God as he has revealed it to his Church. We are not asserting our infallibility, but rather our faith in God’s promises. /When the Protestant reads his Bible and decides for himself what to believe, he is the one who is asserting his own infallibility because he is not submitting to any authority other than his own interpretation. If some Protestant group wishes to defer authority to its ministers or its confessional statements, it is asserting the infallibility of its ministers or founders over and against that of the historic Church. They often allege that they merely are asserting the infallibility of the Bible, but then we have the problem of settling disputes over discordant interpretations. It is the interpretation whose correctness is being questioned, not the correctness of the text it was based upon. As such, it must be the interpreter who needs to be infallible not the source which he interprets. As we noted in the previous section on perspicuity, it is not always possible to completely understand the biblical text even by the experts. Ultimately, the Protestant system is unworkable./Quoted from Dr. Art Sippo
Click to expand...
Thank you! needed clarification on that; Now i know what 2 say 2 Protestants who bring up these concerns. God bless… By the way, am wondering what 1st attracted u 2 the CAtholic faith?
 
RNRobert said:
St. Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2;15,

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (RSV-CE).

Hmmm…:hmmm: It seems Paul gives oral tradition the same authority as the written word.
Click to expand...
Read mat15:6-9.
It’s what Jesus thought of some Jewish traditions.
 
RNRobert said:
St. Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2;15,

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (RSV-CE).

Hmmm…:hmmm: It seems Paul gives oral tradition the same authority as the written word.
Click to expand...
So what are the traditions that Paul was speaking of?
 
Reformed1 said:
So what are the traditions that Paul was speaking of?
Click to expand...
Yes I would like to know too. I have been trying to figure this out for months:(

I was wondering if anyone has considered these traditions to simply be the gospel message being spread throughout the kingdom.
 
Reformed1 said:
So what are the traditions that Paul was speaking of?
Click to expand...
Good question! Also, if we are to go only on the written word, how do we know we have EVERYTHING that St Paul wrote?

Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam. Mohammed wrote the Koran and basically told his followers, “read and heed.” Jesus, on the orther hand, taught exclusively by word of mouth. So did his Apostles. When they wrote, they were writing to people who had already been taught the faith. They wrote mainly to correct error or to clarify doctrine. It was never their intention to write a catechism, with topics neatly arranged, like “B for baptism” or “M for Mary.”
 
RNRobert said:
Good question! Also, if we are to go only on the written word, how do we know we have EVERYTHING that St Paul wrote?

Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam. Mohammed wrote the Koran and basically told his followers, “read and heed.” Jesus, on the orther hand, taught exclusively by word of mouth. So did his Apostles. When they wrote, they were writing to people who had already been taught the faith. They wrote mainly to correct error or to clarify doctrine. It was never their intention to write a catechism, with topics neatly arranged, like “B for baptism” or “M for Mary.”
Click to expand...
We know we don’t have everything that Paul wrote.

Regardless, if a Catholic wants to quote 2Thess2:15 in defense of the RCC’s traditions, it seems reasonable to me that he should be able to demonstrate what exactly those traditions are that we see mentioned in 2Thess2:15.
 
Randy_Carson said:
In another thread in this forum, a Protestant made the following assertion:

Equal to the Word of God?

Infallible?

Well, folks, what do you think of this claim?
Click to expand...
Hello Randy,

Martin Luther and most Protestants do believe that Jesus’s words in scripture are in error. Martin Luther quotes Jesus’ from New Testament scriptures as his opponant. Most modern Protestants also oppose Christ’s scriptural teaching on what we must do to share in everlasting life as Luther did. Protestants believe that scirpture, Jesus words, are failible.

Martin Luther The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

Quoted from Project Wittenberg, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, (1535) by Martin Luther, Chapter 2 v 19

iclnet.org/pub/resources/…b/gal2-17.html

NAB MAT 19:16"Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?" He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’“NAB LUK 10:25 “Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus answered him:****"What is written in the law? How do you read it?” He replied:

**"You shall love the Lord your God, ****with all your heart, ****with all your soul, ****with all your strength, ****and with all your mind; **and your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”
NAB JOH 5:27

“The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned.”
NAB MAT 25:31

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another…

…'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’…

…'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’…

…And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
NAB REV 22:12

“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.”
 
newbie1234 said:
Read mat15:6-9.
It’s what Jesus thought of some Jewish traditions.
Click to expand...
Amen! Catholics love that verse. Any tradition that is opposed to God’s law should be condemned.

Paul, however, is referring to the traditions of the early Church. These we cling to.
 
The question is not whether or not Scripture is the Word of God or infallible, both Catholics and Protestants agree on the infallibility of Holy Scripture.

The real question lies in the translation. This is where the weakness of Protestantism is magnified. One portion of Scripture can not be stating opposing messages - so which message is correct? We can be certain that God did not intend for this confusion.
 
Reformed1 said:
So what are the traditions that Paul was speaking of?
Click to expand...
By Request:

The List of Catholic Traditions

Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

🙂

Just out of curiosity, why do you seek a list from an authority you wouldn’t recognize, anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top