Not By Scripture Alone

[JoeyWarren]

Mozart said : Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, if all other claims of authority equal to the Bible were examined and rejected, what you would end up with would be “sola scriptura by default” anyway.

Where is this magic verse that makes claims of authority as a whole. The Bible is made up of individual writings which individually make no claim to authority.

The only verse that comes close is the one written by Paul, and at the time of it’s writing the only recognized scripture at the time was the individual books of the our Old Testament…

 

[San_Patricio]

First, yes there has been protestant bashing on this thread. Particularly in the first posts. Even worse when a protestant said something you don’t like, you’ve responded with things on the level of “that’s not nice; you shouldn’t say that”.

First, my post- the one you quoted and responded to- made no mention at all of Protestants, so if you want to accuse people of something, please make sure you are accusing the right people.

Also, salvation by works is the heresy. We are saved through faith alone in Christ alone. Let me introduce you to chapters 3 through 5 in the book of Romans…you will find this truth there. James talking about faith without works being dead has to do with one’s faith before man. People will believe your faith to be dead if it lacks good works. Good works would come from faith but they are not a “step” to salvation.

The Catholic Church does not now, nor ever has, taught salvation by works. However, there are numerous places in the New Testament where we are told we must do or must not do in order to be admitted to the Kingdom. But please, show me the passage in Scripture that says “salvation by works is heresy”. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just not familiar with that passage.

Last of all, the comment I quoted above. I’m getting rather tired of seeing that “bs”. Scripture **IS **sufficient! Allow me to introduce you to 2Timothy 3:16! Be sure to ask your magisterium if you can read that verse though. (thoroughly disgusted and off my soapbox now). By the way, I don’t have a problem with you all as people. I don’t even know you. But I have a problem with some of the things that have been said here. To sum it up…Scripture IS sufficient!

It says “all Scripture is inspired by God and is usefull for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”. I agree absolutely, as I do with everything in the Bible.

But it mentions salvation nowhere in that passage, nor does it say that the Bible is sufficient on it’s own. How do you get “sufficient”, meaning that nothing more is needed, from the word “usefull”.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “ask your Magisterium if you can read that verse”. The Church doesn’t tell us what verses we can and can’t read. The Church helps us to understand what Scripture means.

Finally, the Scripture being referred to in Tim. is the Old Testament.

God bless.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

How so Catholic Dude, Sola Scriptura is not the only thing that is not explicit in the Bible. The majority of Catholic Doctrine is just as implicit as the majority of Protestant doctrine. So if you have a point please ellaborate.

I think San Patrico said it best in post 97.
If a central teaching like SS is not explicit then that means you have a problem, a problem that will only lead itself to worse problems in understanding other Christian doctrines.

The grand problem you have is that in claiming “Scripture ALONE” is insufficient to derive the central doctrines of Christianity then you have no choice but to recognize the Catholic position was correct all along and that SS was false from day one when the “reformers” proposed it. The Catholic position states there must be an Authoritative interpreter which draws its interpretation of Scripture (including implicit teachings) off of Tradition. Apart from Tradition and Authoritative interpretation anyone can interpret and justify any teaching they want from the Bible on the grounds it is “implicit” and we see such a mess in protestantism today.

If you say SS is “implict” and I say SS is not “implicit” then who is right?

Umm…even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” (whatever that is…that it is not in the Bible) is absolutely correct, it still does not mean that your interpretation of tradition and your magisterium have equal authority to the written word of God.

Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, it still would mean that all claims of authority equal to the Bible must be rigorously examined and rejected if found wanting. Otherwise you could just as easily be following the Book of Mormon (that was why I brought it up).

Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, if all other claims of authority equal to the Bible were examined and rejected, what you would end up with would be “sola scriptura by default” anyway.

You have clearly zoomed in on the problem. What you have described is that ultimately what TRUTH is comes down to what the individual wants it to be…in the end the Truth is relative “by default” under your system.

In protestantism from the very start each individual “examined and rejected” what THEY personally didnt consider orthodox teaching and at the end of the day each person was bound to their own personal choice of rules and morals.

As far you your “simple logic” statement…you are just incorrect. If entity A has authority to select entity B, that does not mean that entity A has greater or even equal overall authority than entity B. This logic is specifically negated in real life. For example we as citizens have authority to select presidents, senators, congressmen, etc. Yet at the same time we are under in authority what we select and are subject to their laws.

The problem here is that the Church is not a democracy, its leaders are never subject to anyone except those in authority above them. The Bible cant do anything on its own, it must be read and interpreted which ultimatley means its power/authority is NOT the “final word”, rather the Church must be the final authority.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy:
I was working backwards through the assorted posts and had not gotten to this one

John Wesley believed that the Bible was the only infallible rule of faith, but that it was not self-interpreting. To arrive at a valid interpretation of the Bible, he believed it should be interpreted in the light of history, reason, and personal experience.

It does seem reasonable that when an ambiguity in the Bible is encountered, that one look through the lens of history to understand how the ambiguity was understood by the original audience of the author, if possible.

Of course the New Testament, particularly the book of Acts, provides a very good account on how the earliest Christians operated.

I personally have adopted the rule that the earliest church fathers that were important in the church have the most weight as far as understanding Scripture. This would be names such as Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus. The later they are the less weight they carry with me. Things can change in 200 years.

If I were to read these authors together with the book of Acts and the New Testament, and if the composite picture that I receieved was that they match one denomination very closely above all others, that would have to be seriously thought through. Note that I would assign the greater weight to the big picture above isolated details. Note that from my reading so far (which is not expert level) , I do not get the impression that any of us are that much like the earliest Christians. They had a passion, innocence, and purity that us in the sophisticated west have lost

Mozart-

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I earnestly hope you will study the Fathers closely to see what can be gleaned from them.

Did the early Church look to Peter and to his successors in Rome for guidance?
Did the early Church center around the Bishop and the presbyters (from which “priest” is derived)?
Did the early Church teach the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine?
Did the early Church seek to preserve unity and avoid schism?
Did the early Church aggressively deal with heresy or unorthodox doctrines?
Did the early Church honor its martyrs and cherish their relics?

These are good questions to keep in mind as you read the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons, the author of the Didache and the Sherpherd of Hermas, etc. In answering them, you will find that there is ONE Church which matches that described by the Fathers.

Stay this course…you are on a tried and true path.

 

[Mike_Brick]

…salvation by works is the heresy. We are saved through faith alone in Christ alone.

Where do you find that in the Bible, the alones I mean?

James talking about faith without works being dead has to do with one’s faith before man.

What in the world does that mean?

People will believe your faith to be dead if it lacks good works. Good works would come from faith but they are not a “step” to salvation.

You see my friend we have a disagreement on the timing of salvation. Many protestants believe that happens at the time of your initial profession of faith in Jesus, even though you don’t go anywhere, while most Catholics believe that initial profession only starts the journey here that ends in our salvation upon our death when we enter into His heavenly Kingdom. Even St. Paul who you know wrote what you referred us to in Romans said he was “working” out his salvation in fear and trembling. Continuing faithfulness is required along the journey.

Last of all, the comment I quoted above. I’m getting rather tired of seeing that “bs”. Scripture **IS **sufficient! Allow me to introduce you to 2Timothy 3:16! Be sure to ask your magisterium if you can read that verse though. (thoroughly disgusted and off my soapbox now). By the way, I don’t have a problem with you all as people. I don’t even know you. But I have a problem with some of the things that have been said here. To sum it up…Scripture IS sufficient!

Go slow hoosierdaddy, your anger is not very attractive.
Peace and Happy New Year

 

[hoosierdaddy]

First, my post- the one you quoted and responded to- made no mention at all of Protestants, so if you want to accuse people of something, please make sure you are accusing the right people.

Calm down guy. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I was responding to various posts within one post. I quoted you because I wanted to comment on what you said. Please don’t accuse me of anything either then ok?

The Catholic Church does not now, nor ever has, taught salvation by works. However, there are numerous places in the New Testament where we are told we must do or must not do in order to be admitted to the Kingdom. But please, show me the passage in Scripture that says “salvation by works is heresy”. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just not familiar with that passage.

**Please quit the double talk. It’s all over this board about how we are saved and justified by works. I’m not stupid. We are saved and justified by faith alone…all throughout the Bible we are told this. Read Romans 3-7. This implies that salvation by works is heresy…and it is. The only thing we must do to be admitted to the kingdom is to trust in Christ for our salvation. Those other verses you are referring to must be interpreted in some other way. The Bible is not contradictory and that belief contradicts with salvation/justificication by faith ALONE. So you have to interpret the tough passages in light of the easier ones. **

It says “all Scripture is inspired by God and is usefull for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”. I agree absolutely, as I do with everything in the Bible.

Then you would agree that it also says in the following verse “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work”? This is done through personal study of Scripture; not through being spoon fed by a magisterium. You also agree that the Bible does not teach justification through works?

But it mentions salvation nowhere in that passage, nor does it say that the Bible is sufficient on it’s own. How do you get “sufficient”, meaning that nothing more is needed, from the word “usefull”.

It doesn’t mention salvation because it is talking to a saved person. How do I get “sufficient”? Because it says so. And it nowhere mentions the same benefits derived from a magisterium. I’m here to learn what you guys believe but please don’t think I’m dumb and will just accept whatever you guys say. So far, there is not too much I agree on with Catholics.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “ask your Magisterium if you can read that verse”. The Church doesn’t tell us what verses we can and can’t read. The Church helps us to understand what Scripture means.

No, the Church tells you what to believe. Catholics don’t believe that we can study the Bible and learn on our own; Protestants are put down for doing that. My comment was meant in jest but it is sarcasm as well. There was plenty of anti-protestant sarcasm at the beginning of this thread so I thought I’d join the party.

Finally, the Scripture being referred to in Tim. is the Old Testament.

Maybe so. But if it’s repeated in the NT there’s a reason for it. I could also say the same thing about that verse you Catholics use…about “Tradition”. The traditions Paul is talking about are Old Testament teachings passed down orally. It has nothing to do with made up Catholic “traditions”.

God bless.

God bless you too.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Go slow hoosierdaddy, your anger is not very attractive.
Peace and Happy New Year

Huh? What anger?

You said,

“Where do you find that in the Bible, the alones I mean?”

**I find it all over the Bible. Check out Romans 3-7. It’s all by faith alone and I’m sure we can agree, in Christ alone. **

James talking about faith without works being dead has to do with one’s faith before man.

“What in the world does that mean?”

It means what it says. Let me see if I can put it another way so you can grasp it. James says “faith without works is dead” which you guys like to say. I then said that James is talking about faith before man. For example, when you say you have faith to someone but they see no good works from you they conclude that your faith is dead. That is the context of the book…faith before man.

People will believe your faith to be dead if it lacks good works. Good works would come from faith but they are not a “step” to salvation.

You see my friend we have a disagreement on the timing of salvation. Many protestants believe that happens at the time of your initial profession of faith in Jesus, even though you don’t go anywhere, while most Catholics believe that initial profession only starts the journey here that ends in our salvation upon our death when we enter into His heavenly Kingdom. Even St. Paul who you know wrote what you referred us to in Romans said he was “working” out his salvation in fear and trembling. Continuing faithfulness is required along the journey.

That’s fine if you want to disagree but I’m sure that I am on the right side. See 1John was written so that we may KNOW we have eternal life…not that we are on the way to it. Romans talks about counting ourselves dead to sin and since we have died to sin in Christ we are risen with Christ as well in newness of life. Ephesians says we are seated in the heavenlies…we are as good as there already. Paul (since he’s no more of a saint than I am) “worked” out his salvation with fear and trembling because he was already SAVED. He feared God and did not want to lose his rewards. However, he would never lose his eternal salvation. To say otherwise means (in the style of one of the posters on here who like to say it) you are calling Jesus (and John) liars.

**1John 5:11-13 says, "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is (not will be) in His Son. He who has (not might have or may have in the future) the Son has life (now); he who does not have the Son does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (and a Calvinist would say that one who believes in the Son of God will always believe in the Son of God).

God bless.**

 

[francesco920]

How so Catholic Dude, Sola Scriptura is not the only thing that is not explicit in the Bible. The majority of Catholic Doctrine is just as implicit as the majority of Protestant doctrine. So if you have a point please ellaborate.

But unlike Protestants, we don’t say we believe in Sola Scriptura. The point is that by definition Sola Scriptura would have to be in the Bible for it to be true, otherwise, Sola Scriptura cannot be true. If you go into the realm of the implicit, then you can no longer argue things like “I don’t see the word purgatory in the Bible anymore” or " I don’t see where it says that Mary was born immaculate in the Bible" that Protestants always like to argue.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

But unlike Protestants, we don’t say we believe in Sola Scriptura. The point is that by definition Sola Scriptura would have to be in the Bible for it to be true, otherwise, Sola Scriptura cannot be true. If you go into the realm of the implicit, then you can no longer argue things like “I don’t see the word purgatory in the Bible anymore” or " I don’t see where it says that Mary was born immaculate in the Bible" that Protestants always like to argue.

This is an argument derived from man’s reasoning. Sola Scriptura is hinted at throughout Scripture. Without it we are subject to various manipulations by tyrannical dictators hell bent on religious domination. Sola Scriptura is true and necessary for the Church.

Yet Scripture provides no basis for depending on a magisterium to tell us what to believe or at least to put what they say on par with the authority of Scripture.(Off topic comments edited by Moderator)

 

[JonathanKinsman]

It means what it says. Let me see if I can put it another way so you can grasp it. James says “faith without works is dead” which you guys like to say. I then said that James is talking about faith before man. For example, when you say you have faith to someone but they see no good works from you they conclude that your faith is dead. That is the context of the book…faith before man.

Hoosier:

Where in the blazes did you jump from the common sense, plain as day sense, of James’ statement to “James is talking about faith before man?”

If James meant something OTHER than the obvious statement of his words, he would have said it.

Oh, I get it. John may be quoting Jesus as to the body and blood being in the bread and wine (the exact words) but what Jesus MEANT was “Hey, drink grape juice and have some pita bread or crackers on me!”

 

[Mike_Brick]

This is an argument derived from man’s reasoning. Sola Scriptura is hinted at throughout Scripture. Without it we are subject to various manipulations by tyrannical dictators hell bent on religious domination. Sola Scriptura is true and necessary for the Church.

Go slow there hoosierman, you just said the Bible is sufficient alone, meaning it needs nothing outside its bindings, and then said Sola Scriptura is only hinted at throughout scripture", meaning the Bible doesn’t say it. Are you adding to scripture as Martin Luther did with the word “Alone” added after faith?

I am also curious how you became so expert on Catholic doctrine and belief. Can you share that background with us, please? I for one would like to hear more from you.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosier:

Where in the blazes did you jump from the common sense, plain as day sense, of James’ statement to “James is talking about faith before man?”

If James meant something OTHER than the obvious statement of his words, he would have said it.

Oh, I get it. John may be quoting Jesus as to the body and blood being in the bread and wine (the exact words) but what Jesus MEANT was “Hey, drink grape juice and have some pita bread or crackers on me!”

Well, when your common sense plain as day interpretation of James contradicts with the common sense plain as day interpretation of the rest of Scripture you should consider your interpretation. Because your interpretation of James contradicts the whole of Scripture. Why would the whole of Scripture teach salvation by faith alone apart from works and James teach what you think it teaches? Read the book of James…it is all about our Christian walk before man. To answer your question, I got it from Scripture.

As for your sarcastic comment on communion, I am struggling with that. I am not sure about that one. But thanks anyways. It’s a good thing truth isn’t determined by how much of a jerk someone can be or how nice they can be. Happy new year.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Go slow there hoosierman, you just said the Bible is sufficient alone, meaning it needs nothing outside its bindings, and then said Sola Scriptura is only hinted at throughout scripture", meaning the Bible doesn’t say it. Are you adding to scripture as Martin Luther did with the word “Alone” added after faith?

I am also curious how you became so expert on Catholic doctrine and belief. Can you share that background with us, please? I for one would like to hear more from you.

How is the Trinity found in Scripture? How is the magisterium found in Scripture? How is Peter being the Pope found in Scripture, because that verse you guys use to support that really doesn’t say that.

I am not “expert” on Catholic doctrine. I know some things. What, I can’t know anything? How are you so expert on Protestant doctrine? The things I know about Catholic doctrine are the things I’ve read and the things I’ve been told. I’ve even been told some of this stuff on this very site. (Off topic comments edited by Moderator)

 

[Redbandito]

Actually, I have a personal situation (a newly diagnosed serious disease) that really makes changing churches unwise for me.

I got into the habit of arguing Christianity over the internet when I was looking into the assorted denominations of Christianity that were “not mine”. I was doing this to sanity check myself, to make sure I was still in the will of God. Now, the motivation for looking into these assorted denominations no longer exists.

Of course breaking the habit of arguing Christianity over the internet is easier said than done

I am so sorry to hear that Mozart. I will definitely pray for you. My uncle was just diagnosed with prostate cancer. It is amazing the grace God has given him. You wouldn’t even know that he has a disease that could take his life. He is so joyful and upbeat! I pray that the HS blesses you with the same faith and hope, and that He heals you if it be His will for you. God bless you in your struggles. And for the record, I have enjoyed our discussion. I love your honesty. I also love the fact that you can disagree in charity.

In Christ’s Love,
Josh

 

[Redbandito]

Randy:
I was working backwards through the assorted posts and had not gotten to this one

John Wesley believed that the Bible was the only infallible rule of faith, but that it was not self-interpreting. To arrive at a valid interpretation of the Bible, he believed it should be interpreted in the light of history, reason, and personal experience.

I am happy for John Wesley. However, was he infallible? Thus, John Wesley was quite possibly wrong. In fact, my claim is that he is wrong. Again, if John Wesley wanted to disregard the authority of the Church, it was HIS burden to prove the Church was not an infallible authority. Where did he do this?

 

[Redbandito]

Umm…even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” (whatever that is…that it is not in the Bible) is absolutely correct, it still does not mean that your interpretation of tradition and your magisterium have equal authority to the written word of God.

Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, it still would mean that all claims of authority equal to the Bible must be rigorously examined and rejected if found wanting. Otherwise you could just as easily be following the Book of Mormon (that was why I brought it up).

Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, if all other claims of authority equal to the Bible were examined and rejected, what you would end up with would be “sola scriptura by default” anyway.

As far you your “simple logic” statement…you are just incorrect. If entity A has authority to select entity B, that does not mean that entity A has greater or even equal overall authority than entity B. This logic is specifically negated in real life. For example we as citizens have authority to select presidents, senators, congressmen, etc. Yet at the same time we are under in authority what we select and are subject to their laws.

Mozart, you continue to state that the Bible is an infallible authority that has no equal. Prove it! How do you KNOW that the Bible is infallible? This is an important question to answer if you are going to continue with your line of argumentation.

 

[Insignificant]

In response to the claim that without the “authoritative person” there is a chance of arbitrary interpretation, what happens when your “authoritative person” is corrupt, and don’t say the Pope can never be corrupt, cause history very much so tells us otherwise. And have Catholics ever heard of Hermenuetics? You see the authority lies in Scripture, not in people. And Hermenuetics is merely a science used to interpret correctly what Scripture is saying. The authority lies in the Scripture, not the interpreter or interpretation, it is about Truth. Don’t get me wrong if I can be shown a scriptural, evidental, logical argument for giving authority to your tradition and your past church fathers, then I will at the very least stop being so skeptical of this doctrine. My biggest conviction here is for truth, if you can show me your argument has a claim on truth then i may start to believe, but what i have seen so far is merely what you have been spoon fed. So I guess all this to say, If you think you are right then convince me otherwise.

 

[Redbandito]

Huh? What anger?

You said,

“Where do you find that in the Bible, the alones I mean?”

**I find it all over the Bible. Check out Romans 3-7. It’s all by faith alone and I’m sure we can agree, in Christ alone. **

James talking about faith without works being dead has to do with one’s faith before man.

“What in the world does that mean?”

It means what it says. Let me see if I can put it another way so you can grasp it. James says “faith without works is dead” which you guys like to say. I then said that James is talking about faith before man. For example, when you say you have faith to someone but they see no good works from you they conclude that your faith is dead. That is the context of the book…faith before man.

People will believe your faith to be dead if it lacks good works. Good works would come from faith but they are not a “step” to salvation.

You see my friend we have a disagreement on the timing of salvation. Many protestants believe that happens at the time of your initial profession of faith in Jesus, even though you don’t go anywhere, while most Catholics believe that initial profession only starts the journey here that ends in our salvation upon our death when we enter into His heavenly Kingdom. Even St. Paul who you know wrote what you referred us to in Romans said he was “working” out his salvation in fear and trembling. Continuing faithfulness is required along the journey.

That’s fine if you want to disagree but I’m sure that I am on the right side. See 1John was written so that we may KNOW we have eternal life…not that we are on the way to it. Romans talks about counting ourselves dead to sin and since we have died to sin in Christ we are risen with Christ as well in newness of life. Ephesians says we are seated in the heavenlies…we are as good as there already. Paul (since he’s no more of a saint than I am) “worked” out his salvation with fear and trembling because he was already SAVED. He feared God and did not want to lose his rewards. However, he would never lose his eternal salvation. To say otherwise means (in the style of one of the posters on here who like to say it) you are calling Jesus (and John) liars.

1John 5:11-13 says, "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is (not will be) in His Son. He who has (not might have or may have in the future) the Son has life (now); he who does not have the Son does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (and a Calvinist would say that one who believes in the Son of God will always believe in the Son of God).

God bless.

Hoosier, please don’t hijack this thread. If you want to discuss faith alone, start another thread for it. As it is, Romans 3-5 says nothing about faith alone, but rather faith apart from “works of the LAW.” You mistakenly equate that with faith alone. However, these chapters do not teach this doctrine. If you want to debate it, start another thread on “Faith Alone.”

 

[Redbandito]

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible either that says Mary was born immaculate. Because she wasn’t.

Seriously Hoosier, stay on topic, or I will report you. This type of posting is simply meant to attack the Church. If you want to discuss this stuff, I am on board. If you want to lob a bunch of claims at the Church to derail this thread, you should go elsewhere.

 

[Redbandito]

Well, when your common sense plain as day interpretation of James contradicts with the common sense plain as day interpretation of the rest of Scripture you should consider your interpretation. Because your interpretation of James contradicts the whole of Scripture. Why would the whole of Scripture teach salvation by faith alone apart from works and James teach what you think it teaches? Read the book of James…it is all about our Christian walk before man. To answer your question, I got it from Scripture.

As for your sarcastic comment on communion, I am struggling with that. I am not sure about that one. But thanks anyways. It’s a good thing truth isn’t determined by how much of a jerk someone can be or how nice they can be. Happy new year.

Pot meet Kettle. These types of comments are unnecessary. Please get on topic sir. Try to show the fruit of your faith, which SHOULD be love. We have been having a really good discussion on here with our Protestant brethren. Please cool your temper and discuss charitably. Or go elsewhere.