My idea on refuting the "Sola Scriptura" teaching

[souldiver]

I’m have read explanations from the internet before, I forgot them though.

My idea is that, the first church existed before any Bible is created, the Catholic Church is like a living Bible since they are the first church, their knowledge passed on mostly orally since writings can only be written manually to be reproduced before the invention of the printing press.

Also, the Bible we know today didn’t chose itself as true, instead, the church inspected which scriptures are true according to her knowledge and with the help the Holy Spirit. So if you believe the Bible, you indirectly believed the first church without knowing it.

I thought that the Catholic church is nearly as authoritative as the Bible, like Saint Paul, for what I know, he didn’t met Jesus, but why is his teachings part of the Bible? I think it’s because he’s chosen by the church to be an apostle.

What I got to research now is how true that the first church is the Catholic church.

What do you think of this?

Additionally, the Bible followed by the Protestants is based on the Catholic Bible with removed OT books. They should have checked out the Biblical books rejected by the first church if they don’t believe the Catholic church.

 

[rfournier103]

Not too shabby. Certainly sounds like you put some time and effort into this. I’m impressed.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I’m have read explanations from the internet before, I forgot them though.

My idea is that, the first church existed before any Bible is created, the Catholic Church is like a living Bible since they are the first church, their knowledge passed on mostly orally since writings can only be written manually to be reproduced before the invention of the printing press.

Also, the Bible we know today didn’t chose itself as true, instead, the church inspected which scriptures are true according to her knowledge and with the help the Holy Spirit. So if you believe the Bible, you indirectly believed the first church without knowing it.

I thought that the Catholic church is nearly as authoritative as the Bible, like Saint Paul, for what I know, he didn’t met Jesus, but why is his teachings part of the Bible? I think it’s because he’s chosen by the church to be an apostle.

What I got to research now is how true that the first church is the Catholic church.

What do you think of this?

Additionally, the Bible followed by the Protestants is based on the Catholic Bible with removed OT books. They should have checked out the Biblical books rejected by the first church if they don’t believe the Catholic church.

Just look to all the ancient churches and see what they believe I bet you will find catholic beliefs whether they are in communion with Rome or not. The Coptic’s for instance. The sheer amount of writings from the beginning paints a clear picture for Catholicism.

As for sola scriptura its self defeating since nowhere in the bible calls for scripture alone. Its an unbiblical concept lol. the end.

 

[commenter]

Most people who identify themselves as following “Sola Scriptura” are actually deeply influenced by Tradition. They may refer to Bible verses, but there are traditional patterns being followed - this verse refers to THIS topic; THAT verse refers to something else. There is a template behind the scenes, so to speak, they are not aware of - but are following.

They would not regard this as a compliment, but I offer it as such. Many Sola Scriptura Christians are much more faithfully following Christ than cafeteria Catholics and Protestants. I think they would be better off still if they looked deeper for the sources - Tradition, and Magisterium - but many are still better Christians than I am.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

St. Paul did meet and converse with the Risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. No, prior to Christ’s Resurrection, Paul, then called Saul, was not a follower of Jesus. In fact he participated in the stoning of Stephen, and Saul persecuted Jesus. Jesus called to him on the road to Damascus, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And Saul became Paul and had his conversion.

 

[souldiver]

St. Paul did meet and converse with the Risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. No, prior to Christ’s Resurrection, Paul, then called Saul, was not a follower of Jesus. In fact he participated in the stoning of Stephen, and Saul persecuted Jesus. Jesus called to him on the road to Damascus, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And Saul became Paul and had his conversion.

But did Jesus taught him? I don’t know, maybe the church taught Paul since he isn’t a follower yet.

I haven’t read the Acts, and I have only read Matthew out of the 4 gospels.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But did Jesus taught him? I don’t know, maybe the church taught Paul since he isn’t a follower yet.

I haven’t read the Acts, and I have only read Matthew out of the 4 gospels.

St. Paul says that he received all of his knowledge from Christ at one time. He was not taught by the Church, rather Paul, himself established and taught several churches.

This is from the Douay-Rheims version: “For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12).

You will learn a lot more about Paul once you read his letters to his churches.

I think it is wonderful you are reading the bible so diligently.

God bless.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

My idea is that, the first church existed before any Bible is created, the Catholic Church is like a living Bible since they are the first church, their knowledge passed on mostly orally since writings can only be written manually to be reproduced before the invention of the printing press.

Hmmm. You know that the Holy Scriptures were first written, read, and studied by the Jews, yes? The Gospels and letters, etc. of the Christian communities were add-ons.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Hebrew Scriptures were written down at the time of the establishment of the Church, but not the New Testament, of course. That came later in the first century. The gospel of Matthew was written for Jewish-Christians. Whoever wrote Matthew was attempting to convince Jewish people to accept Christ as the Messiah while still retaining their Jewish customs. Luke, on the other hand, was written for a Gentile audience. Mark, the first gospel written presents a low Christology because it was written for the first Christians who were being martyred for their faith. Mark, in part, wanted to show these Christians that Christ suffered, too.

John came much later and presents the highest Christology. John did not want to re-hash the material covered in the Synoptics. John concentrates more on Christ’s divinity.

 

[souldiver]

Hmmm. You know that the Holy Scriptures were first written, read, and studied by the Jews, yes? The Gospels and letters, etc. of the Christian communities were add-ons.

I forgot to specify that what I mean of “Bible” is the New Testament.

Edit: Wait, I think I mean, the “current Bible” where there is the New Testament and the OT books that are included by the Council of Hippo.

 

[commenter]

Hmmm. You know that the Holy Scriptures were first written, read, and studied by the Jews, yes? The Gospels and letters, etc. of the Christian communities were add-ons.

Well…every book in the Bible was an “add-on” if you want to put it that way. Originally there were no books. Then the first book, probably from the Pentateuch. Then more books. The OT wasn’t written all at once. Some Christians wanted to exclude the pre-Christ books, but some of those books were eventually canonized by the Magisterium.

Re: the Gospels and letters, etc, all of them are important, but only a tiny fraction were and still are, even today, canonized by the Magisterium - present tense, not past tense. I am trying to emphasize that the importance of a book isn’t whether it is an original or add-on, since there are no “originals” really.

 

[rcwitness]

I think you are doing well in your study and discernment of Catholic Christianity and faith.

Sola Scripture has much in common with the Catholic faith, yet falls a little short of acknowledging the necessity of Church authority to Confirm to the faithful what is and what is not the True, Apostolic deposit of faith.

Paul received his Apostolic authority, knowledge and ministry from Jesus himself. But he was also sent to receive Baptism, the Holy Spirit and Confirmation through the Church. This was all for the unity of Christ’s mystical body of believers and for the edification of us all. (I personally feel like many who think they are Sola Scripture actually have some sort of “Paul complex”, where they see themselves as fully entitled to know all things because Scripture revealed it all. That’s where they depart from understanding that not all Apostolic Teaching and practice is spelled out in Scripture, yet Scripture does have an aspect of being a record of the complete base and foundation of the Gospel. It a fine line.)

Peter himself (or any other member) added nothing to what Paul knew from Jesus. Peter merely Confirmed this and so gave Paul what Jesus gave him… the Apostolic brotherhood, fellowship and authority.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they search the Scriptures, thinking that in them they have life everlasting. But they did not come to Him so that they would receive life. And it is the Scriptures which point to Jesus!

Non-Catholic Christians who hold to Sola Scripture accept much of what Jesus Taught and Who Jesus is. But they will always deny part of Jesus unless they accept what His Apostolic Church professes. But many Catholics say, “yes” to God, but do not do His will.

So it is not enough to just believe the Church, but to follow the Lord and His bride in our deeds.

 

[souldiver]

Recently, I thought that it’s also okay for the Catholic church to have things not in Bible, because they are the continuation of the Bible being the first church and original succession of leaders. Revivalist Protestants could just be considered self-proclaimed to be honest.