Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?

[bogeydogg]

Still waiting and have been for weeks, explicit scripture on purgatory- good luck.

You see what you want to see and no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that there would be no Scripture without tradition and that contant allusions to as well as out and out mentions of purgation are made in Scripture you refuse to see because your mind is made up.

I have grown tired of you because you have set a demand which you call “explicit” about whose definition shifts when you feel backed into a corner. So enough of this game playing. You won’t be convinced in spite of the evidence which is actually quite strong, so why are you here?

If it is only to antagonize people who mean you no harm then I would seriously ask you check your own heart because I can think of very little intellectually which is further from charity.

Never the less I and others on here will pray for you.

God Bless

 

[EricFilmer]

TraditionRules bsaically demands explicit proof from the Bible about purgatory,yet none of my questions I have not been answered either? Nice double-standard-eh?

Indeed!

 

[EricFilmer]

TraditonRules - here are some comments you have made that I want you to consider:

According to you, Sola Scriptura is an authentic doctrine because…

"the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice." (Post #29, emphasis added).

And in the following quote you once again admited that Sola Scriptura is not explicitly found in the Bible:

**“My point is Sola is not explicit yet nor is purgatory. It’s touche.” ** (Post #94, emphasis added)

But, on the other hand, according to you, purgatory is not an authentic doctrine because it is not explicitly found in Scripture. For example, you said…

"If you can provide explicit scripture on purgatory I will accept your answer as credible, likely though you have wasted my time." (Post #87, emphasis added)

"Still waiting for your explicit scripture on purgatory. Thx." (Post #91, emphasis added)

"Still waiting and have been for weeks, explicit scripture on purgatory- good luck." (Post #171, emphasis added)

So, according to you, even though the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not explicitly found in Scripture, it is still an authentic doctrine. But the Doctrine of Purgatory is not an authentic doctrine solely for the reason that it is not explicitly found in Scripture.

**Is this not a blatant double-standard??? **

If you say, “No”, then clearly explain why it is not.
If you say, “Yes”, then how do you justify this double-standard?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Easy.
Purgatory is an extrabiblical idea,imported into the church in the MiddleAges-a product of tradition but not Scripture.

Don’t be silly. Purgatory was universally taught in the early Church, as can be demonstrated by a study of the Early Church Fathers. Just read St. Augustine, John Chrysostom or Tertullian. Therefore to claim that Purgatory was invented in the Middle Ages simply proves that you are not very well educated on this issue. Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have always historically taught about the reality of a final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that anyone denied this doctrine.

Be careful not to be more interested in winning an argument than in seeking the truth… Because in the end you will lose. Atheists do just as much when they deny the existence of God despite the mountains of evidence that prove them wrong.

The problem is that most Protestants do not know Church history very well and for many, the history of the Church begins in the 16th century when an ex-Catholic priest named Martin Luther broke away from the Church, removed books from the Bible and began teaching the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Ask yourself, how do you know the Books of the Bible are inspired in the first place?
Realize that the Bible does not tell us what books are inspired and which are not; for that you have to trust the Catholic Church. So study the history of the Church–and of the Bible. The Bible is not one big book but a collection of writings which was organized into Chapters and verses by Catholic clergy.

And the Catholic efforts at grasping for hermeneutical straws to support this false belief-“fire,” “the age to come,” “souls in prison”-betray a lack of clear, precise, and biblical evidence for that place called purgatory.

And who exactly are you to be making these claims? Why should anyone trust your opinions? After all, I am not giving you my opinions but rather the teachings of the Church, which has been taught through the ages which can be easily verified if you only studied some history…

 

[TraditonRules]

You see what you want to see and no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that there would be no Scripture without tradition and that contant allusions to as well as out and out mentions of purgation are made in Scripture you refuse to see because your mind is made up.

I have grown tired of you because you have set a demand which you call “explicit” about whose definition shifts when you feel backed into a corner. So enough of this game playing. You won’t be convinced in spite of the evidence which is actually quite strong, so why are you here?

If it is only to antagonize people who mean you no harm then I would seriously ask you check your own heart because I can think of very little intellectually which is further from charity.

Never the less I and others on here will pray for you.

God Bless

I have always conceded Catholics have plenty of “allusions” if that makes you feel better…

 

[inkaneer]

Still waiting and have been for weeks, explicit scripture on purgatory- good luck.

You got it but you will not accept it just as you will not accept when Jesus says, “This is my body.” That it is really His body. How more explicit do you want or need? Now you got what you asked for. Anything further and you are wasting our time. I recommend that this thread be closed as the question has been answered.

 

[bogeydogg]

I have always conceded Catholics have plenty of “allusions” if that makes you feel better…

A) if you care to notice I am not a Catholic

B) I too would like to see this thread closed because it going nowhere

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

I have always conceded Catholics have plenty of “allusions” if that makes you feel better…

And I too have always conceded many non-Catholics as yourself have plenty of delusions of grandeur,such as:

Originally Posted by TraditonRules:

Easy.
Purgatory is an extrabiblical idea,imported into the church in the MiddleAges-a product of tradition but not Scripture.

Extrabiblical idea imported in the Middle Ages? Please provide primary sources from the Middle Ages explicitly showing it was invented in the Middle Ages? Good luck…you’ll need a lot it…

 

[Nicea325]

TraditonRules - here are some comments you have made that I want you to consider:

According to you, Sola Scriptura is an authentic doctrine because…

"the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice." (Post #29, emphasis added).

And in the following quote you once again admited that Sola Scriptura is not explicitly found in the Bible:

"My point is Sola is not explicit yet nor is purgatory. It’s touche." (Post #94, emphasis added)

But, on the other hand, according to you, purgatory is not an authentic doctrine because it is not explicitly found in Scripture. For example, you said…

"If you can provide explicit scripture on purgatory I will accept your answer as credible, likely though you have wasted my time." (Post #87, emphasis added)

"Still waiting for your explicit scripture on purgatory. Thx." (Post #91, emphasis added)

"Still waiting and have been for weeks, explicit scripture on purgatory- good luck." (Post #171, emphasis added)

So, according to you, even though the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not explicitly found in Scripture, it is still an authentic doctrine. But the Doctrine of Purgatory is not an authentic doctrine solely for the reason that it is not explicitly found in Scripture.

**Is this not a blatant double-standard??? **

If you say, “No”, then clearly explain why it is not.
If you say, “Yes”, then how do you justify this double-standard?

TraditionRules is not here to dialogue or learn,but moreover, simply to stir the pot by the obvious “sucker” punches thrown at us.

 

[onlyvoice]

Yes. And the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was not a purely intellectual endeavor, but both spiritual and intellectual.

So, the Apostles passed on to their successors [by word of mouth] the information on what the NT canon should contain. And this Tradition helped the bishops in the selection of the canon 300 years later.

In the online Catholic Encyclopedia, on the subject of the formation of the NT canon, it says this:

“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.”

That there debunks the claim that the Apostles gave the information of what writings were to make up the NT canon.

Moreover, if they did give the “list”, so to speak, the selection process would have run smoothly. But we are told that it was “a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations…” Or, does this mean that they were disputing among themselves who got the orally transmitted “list” right; that it was “retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations” because their recollection of what was passed on was getting obscured with time?

How was the selection made? The same source tells us the criterion for selection was 1) “Apostolicity,” or the writings must be from the Apostles, and 2) “doctrinal tradition,” meaning the writings must be consistent with traditional teaching and practice – nothing there about the bishops telling the other bishops that “this was what was passed on” by others before them.

I cannot speak for him, but his point is essentially that it is one and the same revelation. The written revelation is less complete, for reasons that John gives at the end of his Gospel…

Ok, so they are one and the same revelation.

The unwritten Tradition is not a separate and parallel revelation because it forms part of written Scripture, that is, it is something that is in Scripture but may not be written explicitly [for example, the perpetual virginity of Mary].

Would that be an accurate statement?

 

[inkaneer]

So, the Apostles passed on to their successors [by word of mouth] the information on what the NT canon should contain. And this Tradition helped the bishops in the selection of the canon 300 years later.

I think you misundestand. The Apostles passed on what is called the Apostolic Tradition. This was both Oral Tradition as well as the Written Tradition in accord with Paul’s command to the Thessalonians to hold onto both. In addition, in the early church what we call the Apostolic Succession was very important. That was the pedigree, if you will, of the Church. What that meant was that anyone claiming to be a validly consecrated bishop empowered to teach the Gospel had evidence of their lineage from one of the Apostles. This lineage was passed down by the laying on of hands and is mentioned by Paul in his letter to Timothy. So while the scriptures were all written before the year 100 AD they were not universally distributed but the oral teaching was.

It was only after certain events occurred that it was necessary for the written Tradition to become codified. The events includded the end of persecution and the rise of the heresy of Gnostciism. Gnosticism flooded the christian world with writings which claimed apostolic origin and some of these made it ito the church in different locales. Up to this point in time the Written Tradition was only used in a liturgical setting. That is, it was used in the celebration of the Mass. It still is today. It was never a self study guide to christianity because the church knew and kept Pauls command to hold onto both. However, with the Gnostic writings infiltrating the church it became necessary for the church to formally define what writings were suitable for use in the Liturgy. Thus there began the collection of writings by different bishops but none of these canons were complete until that of Anthansius in 348 AD. This same canon was ratified by local synods in Rome, Hippo and Carthage and was the canon translated by Jerome into the first Bibl, the Vulgate. Finally the Church had one book that contained all of the writings that were suitable for use in the celebration of the Mass. It was a Liturgical book but it did not replace the Oral Tradition. The purpose of the Bible was not to replace the Oral Tradition but rather to support it. So there is no contradiction between the two.

Ok, so they are one and the same revelation.

The unwritten Tradition is not a separate and parallel revelation because it forms part of written Scripture, that is, it is something that is in Scripture but may not be written explicitly [for example, the perpetual virginity of Mary].

Would that be an accurate statement?

No, it would not. You got it backwards. Written Tradition is part of the Unwritten Tradition both of which make up what is called the Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition is what the Apostles received from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some of that was written down by the Apostles and became the Written Tradition but most was not and was preached orally. A good example of this is that Paul tells Timothy to pass on what Timothy received from Paul. If Timothy only passed on what Paul had written to him then Timothy would have had a very abbreviated gospel. But Paul passed on more to Timothy than just what he wrote. Timothy passed on the Oral Tradition and he did it with out the written New Testament.

 

[EricFilmer]

:compcoff:

Well, TraditonRules, I’m still waiting…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

More specifically, I’m still waiting to see if you have any response to…

1) My critique of your usage of Scripture to support Sola Scriptura, which I did way back in Posts #30, 34, 51, 52, 53, 55, 93 & 110.

2) My four-point criticism of Sola Scriptura in Post #32 (your brief response to it in Post #33, which only addressed one of the four points, did not really refute anything, as I have demonstrated in this thread).

3) My criticism of Sola Scriptura being illogical based on the Principle of Non-Contradiction (Post #71).

4) The seven questions I asked you nine days ago in Post #109. Incidentally, this is now the fourth time I’ve asked for your responses to those questions.

5) My demonstration of the double-standard you use when considering the merits of Sola Scriptura and the doctrine of purgatory (Post #181).

Have you quit this thread, TraditonRules? I see you made seven posts yesterday elsewhere in CAF, but you haven’t addressed this thread’s debate in a couple of days. Moreover, you haven’t addressed the actual topic of this thread (i.e., “Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?”) in over a week. Am I to conclude from this that you are not able to provide a defensible rational position for your belief that Scripture is the “final authority”?

 

[EricFilmer]

TraditionRules is not here to dialogue or learn,but moreover, simply to stir the pot by the obvious “sucker” punches thrown at us.

Yes, I have also been getting this same sense from TraditonRules for quite some time now. Still, I was curious if he even realized the double-standard he has been exhibiting in this thread and, if so, how he justified it. But seeing as he got banned today (his last post in CAF was at 5:07 p.m., server time), I guess we’ll never know.

What I found especially disconcerting was that, not only did he try to switch this thread’s topic from Sola Scriptura to purgatory (after he failed to successfully defend Sola Scriptura), but he likewise tried to highjack another thread about Sola Scriptura in the exact same way, as you can see in this post (from Sola Scriptura). Talk about “stirring the pot”!

 

[bogeydogg]

Yes, I have also been getting this same sense from TraditonRules for quite some time now. Still, I was curious if he even realized the double-standard he has been exhibiting in this thread and, if so, how he justified it. But seeing as he got banned today (his last post in CAF was at 5:07 p.m., server time), I guess we’ll never know.

What I found especially disconcerting was that, not only did he try to switch this thread’s topic from Sola Scriptura to purgatory (after he failed to successfully defend Sola Scriptura), but he likewise tried to highjack another thread about Sola Scriptura in the exact same way, as you can see in this post (from Sola Scriptura). Talk about “stirring the pot”!

c’est la vie

I was not aware he was banned.

God Bless

 

[onlyvoice]

I think you misundestand. The Apostles passed on what is called the Apostolic Tradition. This was both Oral Tradition as well as the Written Tradition…

I understand that. Here was my question, to which the answer I received was “Yes, and also from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

Originally Posted by onlyvoice
So, where did the bishops get the knowledge of what the NT canon was to contain? Mark Shea said that: “We cannot know what the NT canon is apart from Sacred Tradition.” But Sacred Tradition, according to Trent, came from the Apostles themselves handed down to the church by word-of-mouth (unwritten). Notice, it says this “Tradition” did not originate from people that replaced the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit BUT from the Apostles themselves. So, was it from the Apostles that the CC bishops got this knowledge on what the NT canon would contain?

You said I misunderstood the other poster’s answer. Are you saying it was not from the Apostles that the bishops got this knowledge of what writings would make up the NT canon? If so, then Shea is wrong when he said that “We cannot know what the NT canon is apart from Sacred Tradition” because, according to Trent, Tradition comes directly from the Apostles and no one else.

No, it would not. You got it backwards. Written Tradition is part of the Unwritten Tradition both of which make up what is called the Apostolic Tradition.

Does it matter? There are two that make up a whole. Either one is part of the other to make up the whole called Apostolic Tradition. Why, is it wrong for a husband to say “I am a part of my wife and our union makes up a family”?

The Apostolic Tradition is what the Apostles received from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some of that was written down by the Apostles and became the Written Tradition but most was not and was preached orally. A good example of this is that Paul tells Timothy to pass on what Timothy received from Paul. If Timothy only passed on what Paul had written to him then Timothy would have had a very abbreviated gospel. But Paul passed on more to Timothy than just what he wrote. Timothy passed on the Oral Tradition and he did it with out the written New Testament.

So, these doctrines that are claimed to have come from Unwritten Tradition [for example Mary’s perpetual virginity] are they found in written Scripture?

You said MOST of the Apostles’ teachings were not written down, but why are there only a very few doctrines considered as oral Tradition?

 

[franc1sc0]

I grew up Methodist and have been married to a Catholic for 12 years now. I have been attending the RCIA classes and want to learn more about the Catholic Faith. I have read this entire thread and am 100% positively convinced that I made the right choice and that The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ. This thread has opened my eyes on how most protestants are just grabbing a straws to try and disprove what the Church teaches in attempt to validate their own beliefs. I thank those here defending the Faith by posting clear concise information that has truly opened my heart and mind more to the Catholic Faith. I cant wait for RCIA class on Monday.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I grew up Methodist and have been married to a Catholic for 12 years now. I have been attending the RCIA classes and want to learn more about the Catholic Faith. I have read this entire thread and am 100% positively convinced that I made the right choice and that The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ. This thread has opened my eyes on how most protestants are just grabbing a straws to try and disprove what the Church teaches in attempt to validate their own beliefs. I thank those here defending the Faith by posting clear concise information that has truly opened my heart and mind more to the Catholic Faith. I cant wait for RCIA class on Monday.

Welcome home! So glade for you. Just remember, Catholics are huge sinners ( me for instance ), that is why we are Catholics. Only the guidence of the Church and the Sacraments Christ left with Her can save us.

As regards " Sola Scriptura, " those poor folks who adhere to it just don’t know anything about how shakey the history of the Bible is. If one researches the history one can only conclude that it is a miracle that we have one, however defective, that can be read ( not easily) and contains nothing against Faith and Morals ( I speak of approved Catholic Bibles here like the New American Bible Revised Edition - NABRE). The point is that it is impossible to know the TRUTHS in the Bible without the guidence of the Church. First came Christ, then the Church, then the Bible with the Church as the SOLE authorized intrepreter. Actually, the Bible is of secondary importance, except for the Liturgy - Mass, the Office, etc. Many Catholics have and do live their whole lives and hardly touch a Bible, though the Church, of late, has been trying to counter act that trait. Personally, I use the Douay Rhiems, Chanoller edition with the Haydock commentary, but I think I will be buying the NABRE.

 

[EricFilmer]

I grew up Methodist and have been married to a Catholic for 12 years now. I have been attending the RCIA classes and want to learn more about the Catholic Faith. I have read this entire thread and am 100% positively convinced that I made the right choice and that The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ. This thread has opened my eyes on how most protestants are just grabbing a straws to try and disprove what the Church teaches in attempt to validate their own beliefs. I thank those here defending the Faith by posting clear concise information that has truly opened my heart and mind more to the Catholic Faith. I cant wait for RCIA class on Monday.

Thanks for the affirmation, and welcome home!

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I think you misundestand. The Apostles passed on what is called the Apostolic Tradition. This was both Oral Tradition as well as the Written Tradition…

I understand that. Here was my question, to which the answer I received was “Yes, and also from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

Question Originally Posted by onlyvoice
“So, where did the bishops get the knowledge of what the NT canon was to contain? Mark Shea said that: “We cannot know what the NT canon is apart from Sacred Tradition.” But Sacred Tradition, according to Trent, came from the Apostles themselves handed down to the church by word-of-mouth (unwritten). Notice, it says this “Tradition” did not originate from people that replaced the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit BUT from the Apostles themselves. So, was it from the Apostles that the CC bishops got this knowledge on what the NT canon would contain?”

You said I misunderstood the other poster’s answer. Are you saying it was not from the Apostles that the bishops got this knowledge of what writings would make up the NT canon? If so, then Shea is wrong when he said that “We cannot know what the NT canon is apart from Sacred Tradition” because, according to Trent, Tradition comes directly from the Apostles and no one else.

The best way to answer your post is to point you to a very long and very detailed account on the biblical canon. I think this will provide the answers you seek. Here is the URL:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Canon_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

 

[rjarmendariz]

I don’t know if there is a problem. But let us remember that our church is not based on a scripture alone doctine. Martin Luther came up with this scripture alone doctrine during the reformation.

But know that our theology is larger than just scripture alone. Besides the Bible, which is obviously ambiguous, we have an ancient church that is over 2,000 years old. We have tradition. We have an hierarchy. And we have been able to survive a reformation and deal with heretics such as Luther.

RJA