Matthew 5:18 for sola scriptura?

[sskyking]

Most Protestants (and probably most Catholics) assume the Bible is like some kind of owners manual that came with the car! In fact, most theologians don’t see them as written “history” at all and don’t attribute them directly to the hand of any of the original twelve apostles.

They are oral tradition written down. As for “sola scriptura”, it is nothing but Protestant tradition that excludes the books of the Apocrypha from the Protestant bible! So again, when they claim “scripture alone”, they are speaking nonsense that even they don’t practice.

I forget who originally said it, but it’s a great quote that “any text, taken out of context, is a pretext”. In other words, any scripture, taken out of the context of the whole can be made to justify or explain anything that the user wishes… and this was the fatal flaw of Luther’s fundamental assumption: that the Bible was so clear and easily understood that all men of “good will” could readily agree without any guidance or authority. Even Luther himself was quickly disabused of that belief!

 

[Godfollower]

what are the questions Catholics must ask in order to refute* sola scriptura*?

If you mean questions you can ask of a believer in Sola Scriptura that will cause the other person to stop believing in it, there aren’t any. They are so caught up in their belief that they don’t follow any traditions in contradiction to Scripture that they won’t accept your questions and answers as revelatory of the fact that they do misunderstand the Bible. At least, not right away.

What you can do, however, is – gently – explain why the Church teaches what she teaches. Give them food for thought that will make them think, even after you’ve left. You won’t win any immediate converts; but then, that’s not how apologetics works anyway. As they hear reasonable comments coming from you (rather than the silly comments they expect), they’ll start to wonder why they believe what they believe. Eventually, God willing, they will start to explore the Church and come home.

 

[MDK]

what are the questions Catholics must ask in order to refute* sola scriptura*?

One would be - how were the first Christians saved, if the first Scripture wasn’t even penned until 20 years after Christ ascended to Heaven?

another - if sola scriptura is true, why are there so many interpretations of the same exact Scripture passage? Is the Holy Spirit leading only you, or all of these people into contradictory meanings of the Scripture?

another - was the Church created before the Bible? If so, how could the true Church start after the Bible?

another - who started your faith system or ecclesial community? If it is a man other than the God-Man, then why are they better than Christ at making a Church?

another - what is the pillar and bulwark of the truth? The Bible or the Church?

another - who assembled the Scriptures into the NT Bible, and why do you not accept their authority, since you trust that they made no error in choosing inspired Scripture?

another - (related to the previous one) who wrote the table of contents of the Bible, because I don’t see anywhere that Pau says John is inspired, or that John’s writing even claims himself to be inspired?

another - how did people read the Scriptures for the first 1400 years before the printing press, which made Bibles affordable and accessable, and when there was a large part of society who was illiterate?

see, Sola Scriputura is just a man made tradition that has absolutely no foundation in the truth. It’s not only unscriptural, but it’s against the Scriptures. Nevertheless, those adherents don’t separate fact from fiction, and so nothing we say will normally change their mind. They really need to discover the true authority Christ established, the Catholic Church. Until they do that, they just rely on their own authority to believe whatever way they want. Don’t be discouraged, though, we must defend the truths and share the truths with others, and perhaps we do our part in cooperation with the Holy Spirit who really does the heavy lifting and moves hearts which are open and seeking Christ. Without the openness to the truth, no matter where it may lead them, they’ll likely never come to see the fullness of revealed truth in the Catholic Church. Factors for the Bible-alone crowd’s continued clinging to false doctrine include pride, arrogance, ignorance (even to the point of invincible ignorance)…

 

[po18guy]

haha now I see the logic. I’ll tell this to the “mat 5:18=bible alone” believers

Tell them that your bible tells you to use more than the bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Version) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

But, only if they believe what the Apostle Paul wrote…

 

[Garland]

Born and raised protestant I never questioned the faith. I left the mountians of eastern Ky. to attened the U of Ky. and was asked if I was prostestant or catholic, and didnt know what a protestant was. ha ha. I found out through a catholic who befriened me that Jesus didnt write a book he founded a church, and that church was still around after all these years, and was still doing what he told it to do. What a suprise when I went to Mass and for the first time in my life I saw people actually worshiping GOD. It took 9 years for me to read my way in and I have been loving every second of my journey for the past 40 years. I read in one of the answers that bible only people should live what they read, good advise and if you do, you too will become CATHOLIC. His will be done Garland

 

[dcastlen50]

Born and raised protestant I never questioned the faith. I left the mountians of eastern Ky. to attened the U of Ky. and was asked if I was prostestant or catholic, and didnt know what a protestant was. ha ha. I found out through a catholic who befriened me that Jesus didnt write a book he founded a church, and that church was still around after all these years, and was still doing what he told it to do. What a suprise when I went to Mass and for the first time in my life I saw people actually worshiping GOD. It took 9 years for me to read my way in and I have been loving every second of my journey for the past 40 years. I read in one of the answers that bible only people should live what they read, good advise and if you do, you too will become CATHOLIC. His will be done Garland

I enjoyed you testimony. Praise God! I would like to hear the details.
Tell me how do you feel about cafeteria Catholics that are in the public eye and are influential?

 

[Garland]

Well let me see, I guess the most important thig was the Euchrist. I read scripture almost daily as a protestant and I am sure that I read John 6 many times and never took it literaly as I did most every thing else in the book, but usually to prove some point or other to others that did not belong to my denomnation. I would sit and listen to a preacher go on and on with a verse taken completely out of context and because it made me feel like I was more right than someone else I bought the big lie. I came to relalize that instead of rivalry between us God wanted us to look at each other through his eyes. After much prayer ,especially to our Blessed Mother, for understanding of what I read I came to know that, sola scriptura, did not hold water. If Luther was right then Jesus was a liar. Lo I am with you always, even to the consumation of the world. I think that means forever and to say after the 3rd century the church went apostate had to be wrong. Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell willnot prevail against it. Pretty plain huh. To thee I give the keys to the Kingdom whatsoever you bind on earth Ill bind in heaven. Was he talking to a book or to a man apointed to look after things? I also came to know that not anyone is smart enough to take an owners manuel from a 57 chevy and go build one. Lots of people marry into the church, but I married a wonderful catholic woman after my conversion and God blessed us with 4 great kids. My advise to anyone searching for truth of scripture to look to the author of the book. God used early catholics to put into words what he wanted said. Only the church has the right to say what the book means since she wrote it. It is her book and when it is used to build the mereiad of different churchs that make up the wasteland of protestantism, it only causes confusion and desintion God is not coming for a house devidied, so pray for all of us to get our act together and raise our voices in union with the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. His will be done. Garland

 

[jamil_joseph02]

2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Why is it that Catholic apologists use 2 peter 1:20-21 to prove that we must not interpret scripture on our own? Well, it seems to me that the verse only refers to the prophecies in scripture, like those in Isaiah. It seems to me that we should not interpret those prophesies our own, but it does not mean we should not interpret the bible our own, because afterall, not all those that are written in the bible are prophecies, right?

Just a thought anyway, and I’m open for answers.

 

[Garland]

Well for sure I know that God is not the God of confusion and discord. Each person as his own interpetuer was lamented by Luthur himself as a pandoras box of misconseptions. In our own time it has given us cults such as Jehovahs Witness, Mormons, Peoples Temple[Jim Jones group], Worldwide Church of God [2 different ones] with father and son fighting each other, and a multitude of others. All using the same book and all teaching different things from the same versus. Jesus sweated blood in the garden and prayed Father may they all be one as you and I are one. I don`t think he is happy with the present plethora of sects fighting each other for the greatest number of folks at this sundays service. It is when his will becomes more important to each person than that persons will that you trully become christian. To surrender your will to the church [Catholic] a word that means one, universal. all in all, is to surrender yourself to Christ in the fullest sense of the word. His will be done .Garland P.S. As I told some protestant friends, it is good to get together and talk about Jesus which is what happens at thier service, but you should come see him once and a while, which happens at all Masses. God love you and draw you in. Garland

 

[sskyking]

Those who maintain that Scripture is so easy to understand that anyone can do it, never watched a father try to follow directions to assemble a bicycle on Christmas Eve!

 

[po18guy]

2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Why is it that Catholic apologists use 2 peter 1:20-21 to prove that we must not interpret scripture on our own? Well, it seems to me that the verse only refers to the prophecies in scripture, like those in Isaiah. It seems to me that we should not interpret those prophesies our own, but it does not mean we should not interpret the bible our own, because afterall, not all those that are written in the bible are prophecies, right?

Just a thought anyway, and I’m open for answers.

The King James Version of the bible translates it as “private interpretation”

2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version) "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

This is to prevent individuals from interpreting scripture apart from the authority which Jesus gave to His Church. Once you interpret scripture individually, and apart from Church authority, you end up with 30,000+ denominations that disagree with one another. Division is the fruit of sola scriptura, and Jesus said that “you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7-16-20).

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

We all know that in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all scripture” refers to the **Old Testament **because there were still no New Testament letters when Paul wrote to Timothy. But why is it we should not extend “all scripture” in 2 timothy 3:16 to the NT as well? NT is also part of scripture right?

 

[po18guy]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

We all know that in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all scripture” refers to the **Old Testament **because there were still no New Testament letters when Paul wrote to Timothy. But why is it we should not extend “all scripture” in 2 timothy 3:16 to the NT as well? NT is also part of scripture right?

Notice that Saint Paul said “all scripture”, not “scripture is all”. There is a huge difference. When Paul wrote that, he probably had no idea that it was scripture that he was writing. His preferred method of teaching was oral, as it was with all of the Apostles. Also note that Paul wrote letters only when he could not physically be there with the Ephesians, Corinthians, Galatians, or others. When he was in a given city, he taught in the manner of Jesus - face to face in the oral tradition.

In Jesus’ time, not even the Jews had a definitive canon of the OT. Those Jews who did not follow Jesus and remained under Mosaic law formed a canon of OT scripture only in response to the rise of Christianity.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Notice that Saint Paul said “all scripture”, not “scripture is all”. There is a huge difference. When Paul wrote that, he probably had no idea that it was scripture that he was writing.

in other words does that mean Paul never thought that one day his writings would be part of what we call New Testament today?

 

[po18guy]

in other words does that mean Paul never thought that one day his writings would be part of what we call New Testament today?

I would have to guess that he did not think so. Notice that each letter was addressed to a specific city, and that it spoke of specific problems they were having. There were inspired words in all of his letters, but they were not addressed to all Christians - just those in the cities to which they were addressed. The Colossians, for example, had different problems than they did in Ephesus, so the letter to the Ephesians might not mean that much to the Colossians. They got their own letters from him. We are speaking of the Church in its earliest days. It was just a baby at the time, and many things had yet to be settled. That was the purpose of the councils.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Ah, I see…

I am now reading an article from catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310sbs.asp on the Catholic Answers. In this article we would see a Catholic and an objector discussing about the sufficiency of scripture. Okay could you or anybody help me understand the very last part of the article? I’m really lost at the last part. To quote from it:

CATHOLIC: Your distinction between the content of the gospel and the process by which it came down to us is curious. Isn’t it an arbitrary distinction to say that one thing (content) applies while the other (process) does not? That distinction results in an ironic turning of the tables. For you to maintain your position that Scripture is sufficient, you are forced to say that part of Paul’s exhortation in Scripture no longer applies. Catholic s, on the other hand, take Paul’s exhortation in Scripture with the utmost seriousness and accept that both the content of the gospel and the process by which it came still apply today. That is why we insist on the importance of oral Tradition. The inspired apostle says in essence to hold to the oral Tradition of the gospel that we have received.

Could someone paraphrase that in the language of a layman? I do hope you could spend your little time with this. thank you

 

[po18guy]

Ah, I see…

I am now reading an article from catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310sbs.asp on the Catholic Answers. In this article we would see a Catholic and an objector discussing about the sufficiency of scripture. Okay could you or anybody help me understand the very last part of the article? I’m really lost at the last part. Could someone paraphrase that in the language of a layman? I do hope you could spend your little time with this. thank you

What this is saying is that there was a process used to determine the content of the bible. Jesus did not give us a bible. He gave us His teachings. The bible did not fall from Heaven. It was assembled by the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A few of Jesus’ teachings were written down and are now included in the bible. Many other men also wrote things that they claimed were scripture. But, which writings are the true Word of God? How can we know?

There were many writings at that time, and all of them were considered for inclusion in the bible. However, it became clear that some were not scripture, but rather opinions or fantasy. Neither of these is the Word of God, and neither is God’s Truth. So, the Church had to separate fact from fiction. They turned to the Holy Spirit to guide them to those writings which are the inspired Word of God.

Protestants reject the Church authority which assembled the bible, and accept only the bible. This is silly, as the two are not to be separated. The Church is Jesus’ body, and He is its Head. The bible is the product of His Body, and cannot be separated from it. When the Protestant reformation tore the bible away from the Church, it began the fracturing of Christ’s Body. We now have 30,000+ denominations, none of which completely agree with the others. This is not as Christ prayed, and this is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

Does this help at all?

 

[dcastlen50]

:thankyou:

In Jesus’ time, not even the Jews had a definitive canon of the OT. Those Jews who did not follow Jesus and remained under Mosaic law formed a canon of OT scripture only in response to the rise of Christianity.

This is fasinating! :newidea:Could you please expand on this or tell me (us) where to go to complete this understanding of history. I am fasinated with it. I know that the protestant OT version of the bible (less seven books) was “put together” by Jewish leaders attempting to disparage Christian teaching. I also understand but am not able to confirm that this OT version was ascribed to by the Scribes as they did not believe in the resurrection of the bible and they they did not believe in after life and they were the first sola scripturas. Can you confirm and clarify these propositions.

 

[po18guy]

:thankyou:

This is fasinating! :newidea:Could you please expand on this or tell me (us) where to go to complete this understanding of history. I am fasinated with it. I know that the protestant OT version of the bible (less seven books) was “put together” by Jewish leaders attempting to disparage Christian teaching. I also understand but am not able to confirm that this OT version was ascribed to by the Scribes as they did not believe in the resurrection of the bible and they they did not believe in after life and they were the first sola scripturas. Can you confirm and clarify these propositions.

You need go no further than right here:

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

I believe that this is the same content as can be read at newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Does this help at all?

Sure! Thanks for the help! I really learned a lot I will have this info printed and studied.