Non-Catholicss: Please explain Sola Scriptura

[Gabriel_of_12]

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS

1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
3. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

myfavoritmartin, Thank you for your definition, I respect your opinion, I follow you in your definition, where I respectfully disagree with you is when you apply ONLY scripture to your belief system. In doing that you Limit The Almighty in his abilities and works for our salvation to just pen and paper. Where was pen and paper for those souls when there was no pen and paper.Even for today. If we were today living among the first apostles there is no King James Version of the bible. The Gospel was preached orally and the oral Sacred Tradition got recorded, but not all got recorded to the scriptures, it was passed on Orally. The Catholic Church doesnt disagree with your faith in the scriptures it is to be commended, that Catholic Church says dont limit God to only the scriptures, she doesnt want to take the scriptures from you, The Catholic Church wants to give you more. Take Pauls point from scripture.

2 Thess.2:15 stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter.

2Tim2:2 and what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to ge described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Its up to you now myfavoritmartin, your zeal to defend sola scriptura keeps you from growing in your relationship with Jesus who is waiting for you. Paul had to be knocked off his horse and blinded first to come to the reality of our Savior. Peace and Love to you brother.

 

[De_Maria]

Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible rule of faith and contain all that we need to know for salvation.

Since the Bible says that in any dispute, one must go to the Chruch (Matt 18:17) and that the Church is the final judge (1 Cor 6:1-4). Why do you say that the Bible is the final authority?

Since the Bible says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), why do you say that that Church is the only rule of faith?

Does it say this somewhere in the Bible? Point it out.

Here are some common misconceptions about Sola Scriptura.

Scripture alone does not require that anyone read the Bible. It recognizes oral teaching but the teaching must be in accord with what the Scriptures contain.

That is Catholic Teaching. It is the Teaching of Scripture and Tradition are one Word of God and therefore never disagree.

So how can you call this idea Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone, since you now admit that traditions are necessary?

Sola Scriptura does not say that all possible knowledge is contained in the Bible. What it says is that the Bible contains all that is needed for salavation. It is the only infallible source.

Where do you get the impression that the Bible is the only infallible source of knowledge? Do you get that from the Bible or from somone’s teaching?

Sola Scriptura does not deny traditions. However tradition is not infallible and is subject to authority of Scripture.

To the authority of Scripture or to the authority of someone interpreting Scripture?

Scripture still needs to be interpreted, so if you interpret a tradition one way and someone another, how does uninterpreted Scripture tell you which is right?

Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Church is necessary or that it has no teaching authority. The Church’s teaching must conform to the Bible as the only infallible source of doctrine.

To who’s interpretation of the Bible?

The Church teaches that Tradition and Scripture are one Word of God infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium.

But you teach that the Church must conform to the Bible? Does the Bible stand up and speak? Or do certain people interpret the words in the Bible? So, if those people interpret the Bible differently, to which interpretation do you adhere?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

fccphx.homestead.com/SolaScriptura.html

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT

1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.

That agrees with Catholic Teaching.

1. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.

That also agrees with Catholic Teaching. Note that you did not say “solely sufficient”. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is materially sufficient as our source of divine truth.

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.

That also agrees with Catholic Teaching.

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.

Where does the Bible say that the Bible is God’s final and full revelation?

Jesus Christ is the final and full revelation of God. His revelation is contained in the Bible and in Tradition.

The Bible is not the revelation of God, it contains the revelation of God which was revealed to men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…

1. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.

How does the Bible test the tradition? Does the Bible speak?

Or do you compare the aforementioned tradition to YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture. And thereby you equate YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture to Scripture. In other words, you consider YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture infallible. Yet you consider that the Church, which is called the Pillar of Truth in the Bible couldn’t possibly be infallible? By what line of thinking can you possibly justify that logic?

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

But you deny the infallibility of the Church?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

myfavoritmartin, Thank you for your definition, I respect your opinion, I follow you in your definition, where I respectfully disagree with you is when you apply ONLY scripture to your belief system. In doing that you Limit The Almighty in his abilities and works for our salvation to just pen and paper. Where was pen and paper for those souls when there was no pen and paper.Even for today. If we were today living among the first apostles there is no King James Version of the bible. The Gospel was preached orally and the oral Sacred Tradition got recorded, but not all got recorded to the scriptures, it was passed on Orally. The Catholic Church doesnt disagree with your faith in the scriptures it is to be commended, that Catholic Church says dont limit God to only the scriptures, she doesnt want to take the scriptures from you, The Catholic Church wants to give you more. Take Pauls point from scripture.

2 Thess.2:15 stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter.

2Tim2:2 and what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to ge described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Its up to you now myfavoritmartin, your zeal to defend sola scriptura keeps you from growing in your relationship with Jesus who is waiting for you. Paul had to be knocked off his horse and blinded first to come to the reality of our Savior. Peace and Love to you brother.

Very good. I’d also like to add that the Bible says that oral teaching is the Word of God, therefore, oral teaching is both a source of Divine Truth and infallible:

1 Thessalonians 2
13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

… I don’t see what you see.…

Exactly the point. So what makes your interpretation infallible? Why should we believe you above the Institution which the Bible calls the Pillar of Truth?

1 Timothy 3
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Why should we believe you above the men who were selected by the men who were selected by the men who were selected by the Apostles?

2 Timothy 2
2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

Why should we believe you when you believe in private interpretation of Scripture and the Bible condemns private interpretation of Scripture?

2 Peter 1
20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[St_Violet]

first let us agree on what a pope is. tell me what it is in your own words and i will do my best to agree with you.

the term pope comes the Latin word, Papa which means Father, Papa was used to refer to bishops, so obviously the term pope would fit to describe the bishop of Rome.

I hope this is still right, because I haven’t researched the history of the term papa for awhile.

 

[AgnosTheist]

the term pope comes the Latin word, Papa which means Father, Papa was used to refer to bishops, so obviously the term pope would fit to describe the bishop of Rome.

I hope this is still right, because I haven’t researched the history of the term papa for awhile.

So back to the original question, who do I think is the first Father of Christianity? It certainly wasnt Peter, he was never recorded as being called ‘Father’ by his his congregation & fellow apostles. No I dont know who was the first person that christians called ‘Father’ beside God himself.

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, it’s quite Scriptural. When Jesus named Simon and called him “A Rock” (Peter) and then said, “Upon this Rock (Peter) I will build my Church,” it seems perfectly obvious that Jesus intended both to build a Church and to set Simon Peter up as its first leader. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Obvious eh? That proves that its only a matter of interpretation. That terribly obscure passage can be manipulated to justify anything other than how you chose to see it.

 

[De_Maria]

So back to the original question, who do I think is the first Father of Christianity? It certainly wasnt Peter, he was never recorded as being called ‘Father’ by his his congregation & fellow apostles. No I dont know who was the first person that christians called ‘Father’ beside God himself.

Abraham.

The Scripture acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of Abraham.

*Matthew 1

• 1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

And Jesus called Abraham, Father, indirectly, in this verse:

*Luke 16

• 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

St. Stephen called Abraham Father in this verse.

*Acts 7:2 Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.
*
St. Paul acknowledged that Abraham as Father of us all:

*Romans 4

• 16 Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
  Is that what you guys are talking about?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Abraham.

The Scripture acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of Abraham.

There are many types of ‘Father’.

The Pope, Bishop & Priest is the spiritual father caretaker type.

Abraham was the ancestral racial father type.

God is the creator father type.

 

[De_Maria]

So back to the original question, who do I think is the first Father of Christianity?

The Father of Christianity is Christ. The Church was born from His side.

It certainly wasnt Peter, he was never recorded as being called ‘Father’ by his his congregation & fellow apostles.

You mean in Scripture. YetSt. Paul explans how the Apostles feel as Fathers towards their congregations.
*
1Thess 2 11* As you know in what manner, entreating and comforting you, (as a father doth his children,)** 12 We** testified to every one of you, that you would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

St. John calls his congregation “my children” and amongst them includes a group he calls “fathers”: So, if he isn’t acknowledging the fatherhood of the priesthood, he is at least acknowledging his own fatherhood in relation to his flock.

*1 John 2:*1 My little children, these things I write to you, …12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake. 13 I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.

No I dont know who was the first person that christians called ‘Father’ beside God himself.

If they followed Sts. Paul and John’s example, they probably called the Apostles father.

*1 Cor 4: *14 I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. 15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AgnosTheist]

The Father of Christianity is Christ. The Church was born from His side.

So Jesus was the first Pope?

YetSt. Paul explans how the Apostles feel as Fathers towards their congregations.
*
1Thess 2 11* As you know in what manner, entreating and comforting you, (as a father doth his children,)** 12** We testified to every one of you, that you would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

That makes sense. The apostles were all fathers, right? They were all Popes.

 

[jmcrae]

So Jesus was the first Pope?

Not exactly, since the role of the Pope is to be Christ’s Vicar here on earth. Obviously, Christ is not His own Vicar.

That makes sense. The apostles were all fathers, right? They were all Popes.

They were all Bishops. Only Peter was Pope. There can only be one Pope at a time. Peter was appointed Pope (chief shepherd of the Church) by Jesus, in John 21:15-19.

 

[jmcrae]

Obvious eh? That proves that its only a matter of interpretation. That terribly obscure passage can be manipulated to justify anything other than how you chose to see it.

Not without doing serious damage to the grammar. I don’t see what’s “obscure” about it, anyway. It seems pretty plain, to me.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Not exactly, since the role of the Pope is to be Christ’s Vicar here on earth. Obviously, Christ is not His own Vicar.

They were all Bishops. Only Peter was Pope. There can only be one Pope at a time. Peter was appointed Pope (chief shepherd of the Church) by Jesus, in John 21:15-19.

we were jusing maria’s understanding of the word ‘pope’. you are obviously more educated and have a more detailed understanding of the word. can you then provide a simple definition of the term that bridges peter with the rest of those folks who were actually given the title of ‘pope’?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Not without doing serious damage to the grammar. I don’t see what’s “obscure” about it, anyway. It seems pretty plain, to me.

you are so used to this passage that it would appear so natural to you. it is obscure because it is full of symbolism, and the entire thing is anything but literal. and both sides (catholic & protestants) can make opposing explanations without even touching the grammar. the first, second and third persons in the passage explained in various ways to justify both views.

 

[jmcrae]

we were jusing maria’s understanding of the word ‘pope’. you are obviously more educated and have a more detailed understanding of the word. can you then provide a simple definition of the term that bridges peter with the rest of those folks who were actually given the title of ‘pope’?

The fact that Peter appointed Linus to be his successor shows that Linus was, indeed, his successor. This is a documented historical fact, as are all of the subsequent successors to that same role. What they were called at the time, and what later successors were called, has very little bearing on the issue - it’s the succession itself that shows us the succession. I have no idea when Popes were first called “Popes” - as far as I know, that’s still just a nick-name for the position, anyway - I think the official title is Universal Bishop.

To compare it to something we are more familiar with - we know that the Windsors were not always called “House of Windsor,” but we can trace the succession of the Windsor family back to its beginnings, even through all of the various name changes. They are still occupying the same role as their ancestors - the fact that there were name changes along the way takes nothing away from either the modern-day role, or the fact that they inherited that role from their ancestors.

When Charles Windsor takes the name King George VII, he will also still be the same person - he will not suddenly become someone else.

 

[jmcrae]

you are so used to this passage that it would appear so natural to you. it is obscure because it is full of symbolism, and the entire thing is anything but literal. and both sides (catholic & protestants) can make opposing explanations without even touching the grammar. the first, second and third persons in the passage explained in various ways to justify both views.

I have never heard a Protestant explanation of this passage that doesn’t assume that either St. Matthew couldn’t write or understand Greek, or had no idea what he was translating into the Greek. (What I like to refer to as the “idiot-savant” theory of the writing of the Gospels - the Apostles were brilliant enough to have remembered everything Jesus said, flawlessly, as well as being fluent in several different languages, both written and spoken, as well as being completely familiar with the Scriptures and other philosophical literature of their own times, but at the same time, they had no clue what Jesus was actually talking about, and it is now up to persons who are just barely literate in their own native language, living on the opposite side of the world 2,000 years later, to correct the Apostles’ superstitious, credulous, and socially backwards interpretations of His meaning.)

 

[AgnosTheist]

I have never heard a Protestant explanation of this passage that doesn’t assume that either St. Matthew couldn’t write or understand Greek, or had no idea what he was translating into the Greek.

a favor please, can you post here the entire passage from your translation of choice? thanks. i wanna compare it with the protestant explanation.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The fact that Peter appointed Linus to be his successor shows that Linus was.

I think what you are trying to say is that in plain words a pope is the topmost oversear of the entire church. If so then Peter was the first pope.

Though I dont think that the appointment of Linus is a fact, for one Tertullian thinks it was Clement I. Second Jerome who wrote about came more than 100 years after the death of Peter, and though what he said is likely to have happened, its still beyond certainty. Third, Christianity’s first 100 years was very chaotic and christianity itself was diversed. Some believed that jesus was just a rabbi, some believed he was a prophet, some believed he was god. And succession went rapidly because of heavy persecution by the Romans.