M
- Status
L
Lampo
Guest
What the Church has always taught is that the Bible is inspired and to be obeyed, as interpreted by the Church.
Where you are confused is in thinking the Bible is the end all and be all of Christian revelation. It isn’t. It is a part of Sacred Tradition. And Sacred Tradition is the teaching of Jesus passed down to the Apostles and their successors–the bishops of the Catholic Church.
The whole of the Bible didn’t even exist as a single canon for nearly 400 years after the Day of Pentecost. It was the oral AND written words of the Apostles and those appointed to preach and teach with them that formed the Church, not the New Testament alone. Most of the Christian world didn’t have all of the NT for many, many decades.
R
RedBert
Guest
The Lamb’s Book of Life in Rev chpts 20 and 21 and in Daniel chpts 7 and 12
it happens in front of the throne of Christ , wheather opened by Jesus , or Jesus commanded some one to open it , it is the same.
(Edited)
L
Lampo
Guest
Doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is what the Church of the living God, the pillar and bullwark of truth, thinks.
R
RedBert
Guest
when were you ever told not to think for yourselves?
In summary . no matter what verses any one will reference , your answers will always be the same. "The Church doesn’t interpret it that way"
so why ask for scripture, or why have this debate ? so you can repeat the official “debate- killing” RCC answer?
I really hopes this works out for you.
I tried these forums for a week, there is no honest examination of issues going on here
(see my previous attempts in this thread to even agree to use a WIKI definition of sola scriptura )
blessings and good bye
( i would leave with a verse, but why bother)
M
mlchance
Guest
L
Lampo
Guest
Reading scripture is good and profitable, which is what the Church teaches, and it should be read and interpreted in the light of the teaching of the Church that gave us the Bible.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Fine…show me where the Bible specifically tells me this. By this logic of yours, it has to be there in order to be a valid Christian teaching.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Here again is a display of the thinking that I believe says something that the Bible does not say while still failing to provide the actual scriptures that actually and specifically support this belief.i think i have it figured out; a Catholic beliefs and practices will not all be found in the bible because some of them lie outside of the bible and when a religion steps outside of those boundries, than anything can and does go; it is a matter of only time and general acc eptance by its members and leadership. this is how the gross distortions about Mary have derived. I passed by a church today named Mary Queen of Heaven and I just shook my head and prayed as i was thinking about those poor souls.
Question is where does this authority originate? If it is from God, then their would be special signs from heaven or other divine authority giving Gods stamp of approval. Cults will always have doctrines whose authorities are derived from within itself under the guise of divine authority. How can you prove anything as true aside from the Bible? You cannot.
I am not suggesting the Catholic church is a cult; I do not have enough knowledge to say that, but the little knowledge I do have and can see in the secular world indicates there are cultlike characteristics.
Even the topic, where does the Bible say…, well if you have the highest regard for scripture and you know it is a divine source of truth, then where else or what other book was given, the book of mormon???
If this is supported by the Word of God, it should be pretty simple to give me the passages that say so.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Not so. We Catholics have no problem at all with what these actually passages say. We just disagree with your interpretation of them.
Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.Which is a very good point to make about that same interpretation which goes beyond what is written.
most excellent Theophilus, **4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.**Here again, this does not say that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the Bible. In fact…it actually is saying that the purpose of Luke’s Gospel is to affirm oral tradition.
Still, this does not tell us what you claim it does. It infers much, such as that scripture is useful for resisting temptation, which certainly agrees with 2nd Timothy 3:16, but being useful is not the same as being the only and ultimate authority, which is something that I have not found in the Word of God.
or the power of God?We’ve already discussed that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, but this also fails to make the claim that would make your belief scriptural.
Again…where does that even infer a sole and final authority to the Bible? In point of fact, St. Paul is here referring to the Old Testament, which by the same logic that you have used would eliminate the New Testament from any inspired authority. That’s just based upon your own logic and not something that either of us believe.
Rhetorical statement?
to you who believe in the name of the Son of God **so that you may know that you have eternal life.**Does not claim the authority that you say it does. Another case of interpretation going beyond what is written?
for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.Catholics have no problem at all with this verse. We believe that is means exactly what it says and we do not believe it means anything more. This does not claim a final and ultimate authority. Like I said before…it’s inspired and useful…
Polemic here? We Catholics haven’t “twisted” anything, though I’m sure you wish we would so your inferred allegation might have substance.
Again…this refers to the Old Testament and by your own logic would cast aside the New Testament as well as open the door for an interpretation that says we need to read and obey the law to be saved. That won’t work now, will it?
.They were talking to Jews about the Messiah. What other source would one expect them to use seeing that even Our Lord pointed out, “For many will come in my name saying, I amChrist: and they will seduce many.”
Still there is no claim of final and ultimate authority here in this passage.
But by your own logic this verse would deny inspiration and acceptance of the New Testament (again) since it specifically refers to the law. Further (and again) this would mean that we are still to obey the law in order to be saved. I know that that is not what you believe nor are trying to say, but that is where it logically and specifically leads.There’s more? Show me then.
Read it many times and it never offers a scripture that specifically says what it claims to be Biblical doctrine.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Stay on topic please. This has nothing to do with that.
Focus on showing me specific scripture that tells us that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is a cult, DerekD?
When the Apostles died, who succeeded them as the legitimate leaders of the Church?
L
Lampo
Guest
Those verses say nothing about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.
There are two main things to note about this passage: 1) It says scripture is “profitable”, it does not say scripture is “all sufficient”; in other words, it does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians…the sole authority in matters of faith and morals for Christians; and, 2) Nowhere do we see the word “alone” in this passage, as in “scripture alone”.
What this passage is saying, and all this passage is saying, is that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching and correction and so forth. Scripture is indeed inspired and it is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We need to read Scripture. We need to know it. We need to ponder it, soak in it, meditate on it, pray it, and be able to share it. But…this passage still doesn’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians. You are trying to force this scripture verse to say something that it doesn’t actually say.
There are more problems with your interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack that holds his ammunition and such. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.
The other problem with this interpretation, is Scripture itself. In James 1:3-4 it says this: “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” So, we see here in James that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
So, what do we see here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way you interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used in 2 Tim 3:16-17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia - patience alone.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You need to either stay on topic and stop with the polemics and rhetoric, which bring nothing worthwhile to the discussion or bail from the discussion if you can’t.
I don’t care what anti-Catholic intarweb sites say…I want an n-C to show me this right there in the Bible. So far…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That would be the Book of Life. See these references.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Catholic beliefs are based upon the entire Word of God which includes both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Perhaps this is why God has protected the Church by the gift of infalliblity.
I pity you, my friend, because you have no theological understanding of the completely biblical basis for the idea that Mary is Queen of Heaven.
That’s right…Mary is said to be the Queen of Heaven because the Bible reveals this to those who know what to look for.
It is also a pity that your faith tradition is ignorant of these truths which have been understood by the true Church for 2,000 years.
How can you prove that the Bible itself is true? You cannot.
Oh, no…of course not. You would never come right out and SAY it…though you implied it strongly above.
Stick with the topic of the thread:
Does the Bible teach that everything must be proved from the Bible Alone?
If so, where?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
GOING BEYOND
By Patrick Madrid
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
Recently, a Baptist minister wrote us a letter. He’d heard a Catholic Answers staffer being interviewed on an Evangelical radio station say, “There is not even a single verse in the Bible which supports the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.” The minister disagreed, expressing his conviction that 1 Corinthians 4:6 fits the bill: “I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written.” He asked how Catholics could deny that this verse teaches sola scriptura.
For reasons which will soon become obvious, proponents of sola scriptura don’t often turn to 1 Corinthians 4:6. But since it does come up from time to time, Catholics should know how to refute the misuse of this verse. (This article will not address any of the other arguments Protestants use in support of sola scriptura; it will look only at 1 Corinthians 4:6.)
There are several of ways to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 can’t rescue sola scriptura from the realm of myth. First, note that none of the Reformers attempted to use this verse to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul’s use of the phrase “what is written” is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:6). Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.
Some commentators see in 1 Corinthians 4:6 an allusion to “what is written” in the Book of Life (Ex. 32:32-33, Rev. 20:12). This is quite possibly what Paul had in mind, since the context of 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 is divine judgment (when the Book of Life will be opened and scrutinized). He admonishes the Corinthians against speculating about how people will be judged, leaving it up to “what has been written” in the Book of Life. Although that interpretation of the text is a possibility, being consistent with the rest of Scripture, it is by no means certain.
What is certain is that Paul, in saying, “do not go beyond what is written,” was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.
The difficulties with these options are immediately clear.
+++
The rest of the article explains those difficulties.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not one of these verses claims that scripture is the sole rule of faith for the beliver.
Some of them extol the Law, others recommend the scriptures known to Timothy in his youth (the OT), others say that Scripture is useful, should be examined, etc.
Okay. Catholics agree with all that.
But Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?
That remains the unanswered question.
L
Lampo
Guest
Thanks much.
- Status