It's NOT in the Bible

[Cat_Herder]

The difference is that the Apostles were men and therefore were not infallible. Sure, they were guided by Christ Himself and by the Holy Spirit but they were not Christ…they were sinners. The Catholic church leaders are no different than any other Holy Spirit guided teachers/pastors in that they are only men.

You’re confusing sin with infallibility (the authority to accurately convey God’s truth). If sinners have no authority to speak the truth, then no one has authority to speak the truth because everyone is a sinner.

Let’s go through this again.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills everyone to come to know the truth and be saved. That’s what it says. God is not a cruel tyrant, but rather Love, so He is not going to leave anyone without the ability to come to know the truth and be saved.

Now what is the MEANS by which people come to know the truth and be saved? The Bible? Nobody had one until 1400 AD. Before that you could only get one from the Catholic Church or the king, so if you were a commoner, no Bible for you unless you go to Father and ask him to fetch the parish Bible.

And that Bible is the Latin Vulgate. There is no other translation. So I hope you are literate and specifically literate in Latin. And by the way, the Vulgate was railed against by many of the Reformers as supposedly being erroneously translated versus the supposedly original Hebrew Masoretic Text (actually it turns out that the MT was made in the 10th century AD, when Jews had no authority over Christians and every reason to de-Christianize the Scriptures.)

So you are boldly proclaiming that the Bible is the only norm of faith for the Christian. Well then, so much for the billions and billions of people who lived and died during the thousand-plus years when the only Churches were Catholic and Orthodox, because they had no Bible and according to you, no way to know the truth. Are you comfortable with shouting “Sola Scriptura!” when that means that God failed to give billions of people access to the Bible, so they could not come to knowledge of the truth and be saved if SS is true?

The only logical MEANS by which all of these people could have known the truth and been saved is the Catholic Church.

 

[SteveGC]

The difference is that the Apostles were men and therefore were not infallible. Sure, they were guided by Christ Himself and by the Holy Spirit but they were not Christ…they were sinners. The Catholic church leaders are no different than any other Holy Spirit guided teachers/pastors in that they are only men.

Following this logic, you would not be able to believe Scripture, because God used men for that endeavor as well. Obviously, God used sinful men to write Sacred Scripture.

Likewise, the Apostles, even in their sinful nature, were protected from error in their Christ-appointed mission of continuing His good work on earth as He departed from it.

Your argument seems to be more focused on the existence of apostolic succession (or lack thereof), because I think you can see the fallacy of your argument that sinful men cannot be protected from error.

FWIW, apostolic succession is quite biblical, and if you were to indulge in some research into the earliest recorded post-apostolic Christian practices, you will see clear evidence of this succession continuing onto today.

Indeed, Catholic leaders are quite different from self-appointed preachers/pastors.

 

[Slinger]

Following this logic, you would not be able to believe Scripture, because God used men for that endeavor as well. Obviously, God used sinful men to write Sacred Scripture.

Likewise, the Apostles, even in their sinful nature, were protected from error in their Christ-appointed mission of continuing His good work on earth as He departed from it.

Your argument seems to be more focused on the existence of apostolic succession (or lack thereof), because I think you can see the fallacy of your argument that sinful men cannot be protected from error.

FWIW, apostolic succession is quite biblical, and if you were to indulge in some research into the earliest recorded post-apostolic Christian practices, you will see clear evidence of this succession continuing onto today.

Indeed, Catholic leaders are quite different from self-appointed preachers/pastors.

Actually, I’m not equating Biblical scripture in the same context as teachings by man. I believe the scripture in the Bible is without error. What happens outside of that is prone to error. However, if I believed that only Catholic teachings were correct then it would be denying those who are non-Catholic teachers are not Holy Spirit guided…which I do not. I’m not familiar with the term “apostolic succession” outside of the Catholic faith.

 

[Slinger]

You’re confusing sin with infallibility (the authority to accurately convey God’s truth). If sinners have no authority to speak the truth, then no one has authority to speak the truth because everyone is a sinner.

Let’s go through this again.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills everyone to come to know the truth and be saved. That’s what it says. God is not a cruel tyrant, but rather Love, so He is not going to leave anyone without the ability to come to know the truth and be saved.

Now what is the MEANS by which people come to know the truth and be saved? The Bible? Nobody had one until 1400 AD. Before that you could only get one from the Catholic Church or the king, so if you were a commoner, no Bible for you unless you go to Father and ask him to fetch the parish Bible.

And that Bible is the Latin Vulgate. There is no other translation. So I hope you are literate and specifically literate in Latin. And by the way, the Vulgate was railed against by many of the Reformers as supposedly being erroneously translated versus the supposedly original Hebrew Masoretic Text (actually it turns out that the MT was made in the 10th century AD, when Jews had no authority over Christians and every reason to de-Christianize the Scriptures.)

So you are boldly proclaiming that the Bible is the only norm of faith for the Christian. Well then, so much for the billions and billions of people who lived and died during the thousand-plus years when the only Churches were Catholic and Orthodox, because they had no Bible and according to you, no way to know the truth. Are you comfortable with shouting “Sola Scriptura!” when that means that God failed to give billions of people access to the Bible, so they could not come to knowledge of the truth and be saved if SS is true?

The only logical MEANS by which all of these people could have known the truth and been saved is the Catholic Church.

Actually I don’t believe men are perfectly infallible and that they are sinners as well. Sinners do have the authority to speak the truth however, we must look to the Bible as the measure for that truth. That is the only thing that we can all have in common.

I am comfortable proclaiming that the Bible is the only written source of God’s Word. I have no beef with the Catholic church and it’s teachings except that I believe that they have taken tradition and placed it in equal importance to the Bible.

In regards to hearing the truth…The same you said regarding what people did before the Bible was printed could be said about the people who haven’t had the Catholic church around them. I believe that God did place a desire for him in our hearts at birth and even without the Bible or church people can still know Him. Prior to the Bible there were opportunities for people to gather and learn and I believed that God provided that to them…they didn’t have modern technology to spread the Word and had to rely on the teachings they learned through church (gathering of believers). I think that belief is perfectly logical.

 

[Lokabrenna]

You know, I was just thinking. There are lots of things that aren’t found in the Bible:

Tomatoes
Potatoes
Chocolate

Let’s just list any “New World” crop, not to mention North America, and South America, and Antarctica.

I don’t see anyone advocating the banning of any of these foods or talking about moving to another country just because none of that stuff is in the Bible.

 

[Slinger]

Genesis 1:29 ESV

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

Pretty general but covers the “food” category

 

[Lokabrenna]

Genesis 1:29 ESV

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

Pretty general but covers the “food” category

It doesn’t really cover the “entire continents” category though.

 

[Bezant]

Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine

Although I’m sure the people supporting it mean well. I myself was rather shocked when I discovered the Church’s views of Scripture.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Although I’m sure the people supporting it mean well. I myself was rather shocked when I discovered the Church’s views of Scripture.

Not a fan of Sola Scriptura? AMEN I say to that!!!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually I don’t believe men are perfectly infallible and that they are sinners as well. Sinners do have the authority to speak the truth however, we must look to the Bible as the measure for that truth. That is the only thing that we can all have in common.

But is it biblical? I’m not asking for your feelings on the matter, I’m asking you to interpret the Bible. Is the Catholic Church the means by which God accomplishes bringing all men to knowledge of the truth as stated in 1 Tim 2:3-4?

 

[Luvtosew]

You need to prayerfully read 1 Corinthians 12. You already talk about the Bible, now go read it and see for yourself.

You just did. Jesus did not say “fast if you feel like it;” He said “when the Bridegroom is taken from them, then they SHALL fast.” It is an obligation.

Just because all food is clean doesn’t mean that you can eat all food all of the time. Cookies are clean, but if you eat nothing but cookies, then you wind up a glutton and have to deal with both the natural consequence of your gluttony (obesity, diabetes, etc.) and the eternal consequence–an attachment to a worldly thing, namely food, and what goes along with that: It has nothing to do with the Lords Supper, although they did come together to eat , in those days they brought food and wine.

[BIBLEDRB]Prov 23:21[/BIBLEDRB]

I’ll start with 1Cor 12 Paul is talking about the Church which means the people of God, the body of Christ, not Christ’s body, but the believers that make up the body of Christ. He is not talking about body parts, but the individual people that make up the Church have different fuits of the gifts, saying even though the members of the church are all different they are still one in Christ, meaning we need to love and repect each other.

 

[Luvtosew]

What is “the spiritual sense?”

I’m sorry you don’t know what spiritual is, take in faith and belief that Christ is our Lord and Saviour. There is not need to consume heart muscle or drink real blood ie, the actual physical body of Christ.

So you admit you pray to angles- good, as we are Saints , followers of Jesus Christ on earth,

Acts 9:13, 9:32, and 26:10
Phil 4:21 & 22
Rom 16:2
Eph 4:12 and Eph 5:3 and 3:8

Rev 5:11 thousands upon thousands of angles

Saints are the body of Christ on earth.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the OP please

 

[JustaServant]

Anyway, to keep the ship steady as Eric suggests:
Show me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

My original post…

“Do we agree that the Bible is the word of God? I hope the answer is yes. If it is, then, do we agree that any tradition or ritual or action, etc, should not contradict the truths found within God’s word? Again, I hope the answer is yes. That is the meaning of sola scriptura.”

If that is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, then no one would be claiming that SS was opposed to the Catholic Church, because nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible.

And yet virtually every Protestant makes that claim.

Well, that actually is the meaning. Read the first paragraph here, for example.

No one claiming that it is in contradiction with the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church not having an issue with it is really my whole point. If everyone took time to understand the definition, there would be no divide. Now, there will be divides on the interpretation validating the application of sola scriptura, but not sola scriptura itself. For example, we can disagree whether or not John 6 implies transubstantiation but there shouldn’t be an argument whether or not it’s “Biblical” or “un-Biblical” because the Catholic Church believes that the scriptures validate this [tradition/Tradition/ritual/action/insert your term] and Protestants believe that the scriptures invalidate it. The scriptures are the measuring tool for both, but the interpretations/conclusions are different.

I’m not interested what “virtually every Protestant” says. Virtually everyone is prone to error from time to time—Lord help me! Additionally, perceptions on numbers can be extremely misleading. A vocal minority can easily be perceived as a majority and those whom one is surrounded by can alter perceptions. For example, I used to attend a Catholic Church in which very few likely ever opened their Bible (and that’s being conservative!). No one ever talked about God or “religion” outside of the priest during the mass. They would recite the creed and prayers but their hearts were clearly far from what their lips were saying. If that was my only experience with Catholics, would it be representative of the average Catholic? Contrast that with members of this forum. Clearly, they are very devoted and convicted by their faith and read their Bible frequently. If that was my only experience with Catholics, would that be representative of the average Catholic? Similarly, if “virtually every Protestant” you encounter has a ‘stick it to those Catholics’ attitude, that is going to give you a skewed perception.

And let’s face it, there are plenty of examples in this forum to show that it’s not simply a place for people of different faiths to dialogue. Plenty of Protestants come here looking to “attack” the Catholic Church and plenty of Catholics come here looking to “attack” Protestants. They come here for a battle. They come with a need to be right over an attitude of sharing truth with love.

That is how definitions get easily altered or misunderstood and claims get exaggerated.

Conviction that is not under-girded by love makes the possessor of that conviction obnoxious and the dogma possessed becomes repulsive. - Ravi Zacharias

Don’t cut off a man’s nose and offer him a rose to smell. - Indian Proverb

 

[KathleenGee]

Faithfulandtrue…

What you are missing is that the Church is not seeing book form as revelation in itself. Sacred Scripture is authored by God but written with human hands and representing the times and conditions in which the writer lived.

Fundamentalists put too much on Bible alone. And do not know early church history where Christ founded the oral tradition with the witness of 12 apostles. St. Peter in his second letter exhorts us not to separate from the Apostolic understanding of Christ’s words and teachings.

It is the Holy Spirit with Sacred Scripture, combined with the living tradition of faith–how the Word of God was understood and lived out in the beginning of the Church – that we understand the Word.

Protestants do not believe that Christ left His comforter and guide to the Church to lead it. Every early church father had atleast one heretical teaching, but would refer it to the Church for discernment. Same with the books of the Bible.

You won’t find this out unless you study church history. Rather than being people of the Book, we are people of salvation history…God coming to a gathering of people with authorized leaders.

Bibles were very expensive to make. When Europe was being decimated, it was the Irish monks who preserved the Bible. Martin Luther’s Reformation happened at the same time with the invention of the printing press. But our liturgies have both the Bible teachings and the Eucharist since the very beginning.

 

[SteveGC]

Actually, I’m not equating Biblical scripture in the same context as teachings by man. I believe the scripture in the Bible is without error. What happens outside of that is prone to error.

And all I’m saying is that this position is illogical. How is it that God can protect what sinful man writes from error, but not what he says, or teaches? Remember, He breathed on both for the purpose of spreading His Word to all peoples. If you don’t believe he can protect man from preaching error, then how is it you believe what the prophets said to the people of the Old Covenant? Those things weren’t just written…they were first uttered, by men. So, I think you have to examine why you limit God to protecting only the written word from error, but not the spoken word - especially in light of the fact that it is clear that He breathed upon both.

However, if I believed that only Catholic teachings were correct then it would be denying those who are non-Catholic teachers are not Holy Spirit guided…which I do not.

Well, I’m Catholic, and I don’t deny that some non-Catholic teachers are guided by the Holy Spirit. Nor do I deny that anyone is guided by the Spirit. I mean, how is anyone to know precisely who is, or isn’t being guided at any point in time? I don’t even deny that some of what non-Catholic teachers profess is true. What I would claim, however, is that when a non-Catholic teacher teaches something contrary to the deposit of faith, as given by that same Spirit to the Church, then that teacher, in that moment, is not being guided by the Spirit, for the simple fact that it is contrary to the Truth. God, in all of His persons, is not confined to the Church He established, but He manifests Himself most fully within it, including protecting Her from error when speaking officially regarding faith and morals.

In other words, you don’t have to fully deny that non-Catholic teachers are Spirit-guided in order to accept the fact that only Catholic teachings (dogmatic teachings on faith and morals) are correct.

I’m not familiar with the term “apostolic succession” outside of the Catholic faith.

Nor am I, for there is no apostolic succession outside the Catholic faith. Did you mean that you do not know what the term itself means?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Faithfulandtrue…

What you are missing is that the Church is not seeing book form as revelation in itself. Sacred Scripture is authored by God but written with human hands and representing the times and conditions in which the writer lived.

Fundamentalists put too much on Bible alone. And do not know early church history where Christ founded the oral tradition with the witness of 12 apostles. St. Peter in his second letter exhorts us not to separate from the Apostolic understanding of Christ’s words and teachings.

It is the Holy Spirit with Sacred Scripture, combined with the living tradition of faith–how the Word of God was understood and lived out in the beginning of the Church – that we understand the Word.

Protestants do not believe that Christ left His comforter and guide to the Church to lead it. Every early church father had atleast one heretical teaching, but would refer it to the Church for discernment. Same with the books of the Bible.

You won’t find this out unless you study church history. Rather than being people of the Book, we are people of salvation history…God coming to a gathering of people with authorized leaders.

Bibles were very expensive to make. When Europe was being decimated, it was the Irish monks who preserved the Bible. Martin Luther’s Reformation happened at the same time with the invention of the printing press. But our liturgies have both the Bible teachings and the Eucharist since the very beginning.

You are misunderstanding the point. This has nothing to do with history or the Eucharist specifically. And if you read my previous posts in this thread, you’ll see that I state that sola scriptura has no authority, it is God who has the authority. So I do not worship the Bible. I worship the GOD of the Bible. But I digress… back to the point…

The Catholic Church believes that nothing it teaches/does contradicts scripture, correct? And if someone were to teach/do something that the Catholic Church believes contradicts scripture, the Catholic Church would be quick to condemn that teaching/practice, correct? That is exactly what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not mean “everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible” as the OP states.

 

[mangomango]

I went to Catholic school my entire childhood life. I don’t remember seeing a bible in any classroom nor did I ever hear or see a priest or nun use a bible in my Religion class. I have never in my life heard a priest tell me at church to read the bible for myself. One might say they didnt want me to read the bible.

 

[SteveGC]

Actually I don’t believe men are perfectly infallible and that they are sinners as well. Sinners do have the authority to speak the truth however, we must look to the Bible as the measure for that truth. That is the only thing that we can all have in common.

Not quite. If we’re using the Bible as the sole measure of truth, then we’re not simply looking at the Bible, we’re looking specifically at an interpretation of it. There’s always a someone behind the Bible, and I don’t mean just God, who is ultimately behind it all. I mean, it is not self-interpretive. To discern the true meanings of the words it contains, we must find the inerrant interpreter, and since it is not self-interpretive, this suggests God must have left behind a human means of inerrant interpretation, atleast for those things which are salvific in nature, things critical to the new covenant. It’s not as easy as saying, lets take our differing opinions to the Bible to see who is right, for you will read it one way, and I will read it another. We both must submit to Christ’s earthly authority, which is to say, the authority He Himself established.

I am comfortable proclaiming that the Bible is the only written source of God’s Word. I have no beef with the Catholic church and it’s teachings except that I believe that they have taken tradition and placed it in equal importance to the Bible.

You will likely be surprised to learn that the Bible is actually a part of that very Tradition. Without the Church, you would not have it at all. That’s simple historical fact. So, they indeed are of equal importance.

In regards to hearing the truth…The same you said regarding what people did before the Bible was printed could be said about the people who haven’t had the Catholic church around them. I believe that God did place a desire for him in our hearts at birth and even without the Bible or church people can still know Him. Prior to the Bible there were opportunities for people to gather and learn and I believed that God provided that to them…they didn’t have modern technology to spread the Word and had to rely on the teachings they learned through church (gathering of believers). I think that belief is perfectly logical.

All of this is very true. God’s truth can be found anywhere, especially and most abundantly around those who truly seek Him. But we’re talking about the normative means which He established for people to know Him, where the fullness of Truth presides. Those who use their fullest capacities of faith and reason to seek Him are typically led to the Catholic faith. It’s like divine gravity.