Not By Scripture Alone

[hoosierdaddy]

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.”

Hence the uh…faith alone aspect. I’m not hijacking anything. I’d appreciate you refrain from the slander and false accusations or I will report you.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

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.

Uh…the reason I mentioned that is because somebody else did. So “this type of posting is meant to attack the Church” eh? What about the arrogant and sarcastic comments some of you make about protestants? I don’t take too kindly to threats. If you can’t deal with the topic, give it up. You don’t have to make threats though. And you definitely don’t have to slander and make accusations against people that have no basis in reality.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

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.

Ditto.

For the last time, I am on topic. Everything I have addressed has been mentioned in this thread! I was trying to be involved in the discussion myself before someone got all sarcastic with me. Was that loving for them to do that to me? Please cease with your slander and discuss charitably. Or go elsewhere.

P.S. I haven’t gone elsewhere but…problem solved.

 

[Mike_Brick]

How is the Trinity found in Scripture? In that term it’s not, and if you believe in the “Trinity” you are violating your scripture alone rule of faith. I believe but am not bound by your rule which was developed without the help of scripture after 1500 AD.

Since this is a Scripture Alone thread, I won’t go into individual doctrines here.

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?

Since you asked, I am a cradle Catholic who’s been married to a hardcore Southern Baptist daughter of a So. Baptist Preacher from south Georgia for almost 40 years. Heck, my mother-in-law once told me Jesus Himself personally wrote every one of those red letter words in the Bible. Over those years I have had to learn a lot about both worlds, Catholic and protestant. I spent a lot of time in Sunday Schools, and even once was almost elected president of the class, but had to bow out to avoid getting kicked out of both churches. The things I know about both faith traditions are things I heard about, then checked to see if what I heard was true, because we all must seek The Way, The Truth and the Life, which is Jesus who is all of our savior. We’re all trying to get to the same place just using different terminology which is confusing.

The things I know about Catholic doctrine are the things I’ve read and the things I’ve been told. I’ll end here. You cannot learn about Catholic Doctrine by reading protestant writers, nor can we learn about protestants from Catholics who have never been one.

 

[Michael_Francis]

For the last time, I am on topic. Everything I have addressed has been mentioned in this thread!

I was trying to be involved in the discussion myself before someone got all sarcastic with me. Was that loving for them to do that to me? Please cease with your slander and discuss charitably. Or go elsewhere.Important Clarifying Note:

Unlike some of the boards that some of you may have posted on, here on Apologetics CAF “on-topic” means it remains directly relevent to the initial post, not just because someone somewhere along the way makes a statement or brings up a different topic. If you have a thought that takes the thread off-topic it is best to **simply copy the post in question, copy that quote and make that the initial post of your response on a seperate thread.
**
Off topic posting (andespecially sniping at each other.) is a violation of the Forum Rules that you agreed to when you came on board here at CAF.

**IF **a member post something that you know is violation of those rules or the Banned Topics Policy then please feel free to alert me and the other mods by clicking The Bad Post Report button http://70.85.23.3/images/buttons_cak/report.gif up in the right corner of the offending post and we’ll check it out.

Nobody’s being singled out by this, but I want you guys to understand what I expect in your posting.
Have a Happy New Year!
MF

P.S.
You will all note that I have removed all the off topic posts and sniping. Next time I’ll be issuing infractions for such posts, regardless of who posts them. Some of my fellow Catholics have been warned about your charity before, so keep that in mind.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Sola Scriptura is not even implicitly defined in the Bible.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Sola Scriptura is not even implicitly defined in the Bible.

I’d say the same about many Catholic beliefs and doctrines.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d say the same about many Catholic beliefs and doctrines.

Of course you would. But you’d be wrong.

As the moderator suggested, start a thread on each and every doctrine you have in mind…we’ll be there…with answers.

 

[mozart-250]

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.

First of all, let’s get words and statements correct.

The Bible technically is an inerrant authority. Infallible means incapable of error. Although infallible could be applied to the Bible, it really seems better applied to a repeatable process. The Bible is a document, not a process.

Technically what I am saying is that all claims of equality to the Bible that are relevant to Christians at the present time that I have encountered can not be demonstrated. Therefore the “has no equal” is is an argument by absence.

How do I know the the Bible is inerrant:
(1) 1 Timothy 3:16
(2) Titus 1:2 states it is impossible for God to lie

If Scripture is God breathed and God can not lie…since A=B and A=C, logic dictates that the scriptures contain no lies.

I know you will respond and say this is circular, but ultimately any system of belief has its core beliefs or assumptions that must be accepted by faith. I mean even mathematics has 3 or 4 assumptions from which everything follows that can not be proven. If I demanded everything be proved to me before I believe, I would be at best an agnostic.

I think you will find that your beliefs that the magisterium of the RC denomination and tradition as interpreted by the RC denomination are equivalent to the Bible also reduce to assumptions that you take by faith but that can not be proven.

Source of faith arguments are difficult if not impossible to prove.

 

[kaycee]

Sola Scriptura is not even implicitly defined in the Bible.

The revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exodus 34:27), and that written record of God’s Word became the basis for God’s covenant with the nation (Exodus 24:4, 7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses’ successor, Joshua: “Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night., so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it” Joshua 1:7 – 8).

 

[kaycee]

Sola Scriptura is not even implicitly defined in the Bible.

“Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:5 – 6).

The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20, KJV).

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If one is thoroughly equipped with God Breathed scripture, what else is needed???

 

[mozart-250]

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?

Actually you raise an interesting point on “burden of proof”.

In debate, the one making the claim has the “burden of proof”.

John Wesley was a non Catholic. To us non Catholics, the RC denomination at first glance appears to be just that, another Christian denomination with its distinct ecclesiastical organization and its distinct doctrine.

Therefore, if you want to make the claim to us that you are the “one true church” and that we are following heresy, you have the burden of proof in that case. Otherwise, we will just stay where we are thank you.

Similarly, if we want to claim to you that you are wrong and we are correct, the burden of proof rests upon us to prove our claims.

Therefore the burden of proof was not upon John Wesley, unless he was making specific charges against the RC denomination. And if you examine his life (see letter to a Catholic) you will actually find he was quite an ecumenical guy, so it was doubtful he was.

As far as the topic of this thread, if I want to claim to you that the Bible teaches it is the sole authority, the burden of proof rests upon me. Now here we immediately have a problem, because the best I can make is an implicit argument. An implicit argument is one that can not be proved, only believed.

Besides, you have three other problems that if you are not really careful you can trip over (1) first of all “sola scriptura” is just a title. Definition please. (2) if the Bible teaches this, how did it apply in the time period after the death of Christ to the point in time the canon was recognized. Remember, Biblical principles are universal and independent of time (3) Unless you want to make the argument the rules suddenly changed the day the canon was recognized.

However, if you (or anyone) wants to claim to me their faith source du jour is equivalent to the Bible (given the assumption I recognize it to be the inerrant word of God), the burden of proof is upon you (or whomever) to prove the case. If nobody proves their case, what you end up with is a type of sola scriptura by default anyway.

That’s just how burden of proof operates.

 

[mozart-250]

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

Hmm…that just happens to be mine.

The good news for your uncle and me is that if caught early enough, it is immensely curable. And even if not curable, there are enough treatments out there that life can be extended for many years, depending when caught.

And even if fatal, for a Christian, death is hardly a great calamity. It is just a transition from one state of life to a greater state.

I am thankful for the grace given your uncle and thank you for your prayers for me. God is good.

 

[JoeyWarren]

“Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:5 – 6).

The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20, KJV).

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If one is thoroughly equipped with God Breathed scripture, what else is needed???

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

 

[JoeyWarren]

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Mike_Brick]

I disagree with you though Mike. My point was you guys believe in the Trinity even though it’s not in Scripture but you want us to back up our beliefs with explicit Scripture. You can’t have it both ways. I’m also not violating any rule. Something doesn’t have to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture to satisfy the “Scripture alone” position. The implicit concept can be there.

We are now making some real good progress and many of us probably agree with you my brother as you wrote “Something doesn’t have to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture…The implicit concept can be there”. There is hope for a semblance of unity at least, Praise God! Where we disagree is who deals best with those things found implicit in SS, (Sacred Scripture). The Church established on the Rock, Peter, to whom Jesus gave the “Keys of the Kingdom” along with the authority to “Bind and Loose” takes a broader view and trusts the whole Body, while the protestants, thinking the Holy Spirit will lead each and every single individual believer onto the correct path with out any other help, take the narrower view and leaves it up to the individual. If that were really true, tell me why there are now about 40K Christian denominations, not including the non-denomination denominations, all using the same Bible as their sole guide/map?) But further discussion of that is also best discussed in a different thread.

“For example, all the catholics wanting us to find scripture verses to support our position.”

That comes from your taking the position of Sola Scriptura. Insistance that all there is to know is found written in scripture causes that. As long as you hold fast to that notion you will be challenged to back it up with an explicit not implicit quote therefrom. But our reading of the last verse of the Gospel of John tells us there is more of what Jesus taught than what is formally written in the NT.

On another thread someone basically called me a non-Christian because I’m not a Catholic. And I knew that this is truly what Catholics believe, even though they try hard to deny it.

I appologize to you for their unchristian behavior but remember all churches are composed of sinners, and every one has it’s 10% club of knuckleheads. I hope all of us in this thread believe that many Catholics don’t know and value SS highly enough, while many protestants believe we don’t know or value it at all. My motto in life is somewhere in the middle, (never the center) lies the truth, (which comes from 33 years of law enforcement).

 

[Brett_Barnes]

What the hey…

I don’t expect you to understand this, but I am still searching for the Scriptures in the Bible where the Bible explicitely identifies another faith source as its equal. Maybe they exist in Hosea 15 or somewhere, but I have yet to come across them.

Without these Scriptures, if in fact another faith source exists, I have no means to identify and separate it from false sources. From my side of the fence I see no logical difference between accepting the Magisterium of a denomination that is not mine or tradition as defined by a denomination that is not mine than accepting the Book of Mormon or the teachings of David Koresh.

You have argued against yourself.

You have accepted the authority of the Catholic Magisterium when you accepted your bible. It was the Catholic Church that determined the table of contents of the New Testament. If your bible were to contain the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Mary, or The Shepherd of Hermas, or the Gospel of Thomas you could stand alone, but it doesn’t, so you can’t.

The Church made the bible, not the other way around. So when you state, “I am still searching for the Scriptures in the Bible where the Bible explicitly identifies another faith source as its equal.” It’s very existence identifies that it has a faith source of its equal. You have given the Catholic Church, through its infallible magistrium, the authority to compile your bible. So you yourself have identified and accepted the “faith source” of its equal.

Finally, it’s not up to us, as Roman Catholics, to prove that Sola Scriptura is a fallacy, even though several people in this forum have done just that. The bible is our book, you showed up to the party 1500 years too late. So it’s up to you to prove Sola Scriptura is proper Christian theology: which you can’t.

I also find it interesting that you continue you refer to Roman Catholicism as a denomination, which historically speaking it is not. This is not a point of theological debate—it’s historical fact, and one that you refuse to accept. If you are going to continue to not allow the facts to interfere with your opinion, I don’t see why you continue to debate on this forum.

 

[kaycee]

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

The Gospel was first Oral then written down by the 4 Gospel writers. The message was the same. your point?

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

John 20:30 does not record all MIRACULOUS SIGNS. Please read the verse.
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Those WRITTEN MIRACLES are provided so we may Believe. The non written miracles were not needed. There is nothing to OBSERVE or to Keep. Do you Observe or keep Jesus walking on water or healing the blind? This verse says nothing about unspoken commands or doctrine! Your reference to this verse makes no sense.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The obvious reference is to “Jesus did many other THINGS”

How do you “OSBSERVE” or Keep the fact that “Jesus did many other THINGS” that were not recorded?

Is the Oral tradition as large as the books that would over flow the WORLD if it was written down?

How do we Observe or Keep the other THINGS Jesus did?
How do we Observe or Keep activities where “even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

**YES! The implication being without the written word there is less certainty! **

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

I would like to see this list of other things that Jesus did. Is it available? Has anyone ever memorized the list preserved in oral tradition where even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written?

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

It apparently proves that eunoch requested help, thats about it. Phillip did not have to be infallible to elucidate the scripture.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Actually James presides and renders his decision

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

ahhh pagan inspired writings?

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians This disproves Scripture alone. .

Pauls prior letter → *“Dear Corinthians, Love one another. yours in Christ. Paul” *this disproves scripture alone???
Apparently Paul repeated himself on the important issues. To imply that his non recorded epistle’s contain different doctrine (Edited By Moderator. Stay on topic).

Ga 1:9
**As we have already said, so now I say again: **If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Php 3:18
**For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, **many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

**There is no difference in the message oral or written! **

 

[Church_Militant]

"Every word of God

is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:5 – 6).

The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20, KJV).You have a real problem here. Here’s why:

1. Genesis 15:1 Now when these things were done, the word of the Lord came to Abram by a vision, saying: Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great.
2. Genesis 15:4 And immediately the word of the Lord came to him, saying: He shall not be thy heir: but he that shall come out of thy bowels, him shalt thou have for thy heir.
3. 1st Samuel 15:10 And the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying:
4. 2nd Samuel 7:4 But it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:

A whole list of times “the word of the Lord came to” is used in the Old Testament, yet not all of those statements are considered inspired with respect to all of us since they were spoken to individuals long ago.

According to the logic that you espouse they should have applications to each of as well, yet that is clearly not what God intended with those passages.

I think this is another good example of the literalist interpetation of scripture as opposed to a literal interpretation that Catholics use .

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful

for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If one is thoroughly equipped with God Breathed scripture, what else is needed???No argument about God-breathed (inspired), however, the very verse you have cited says what? “Useful”, which Catholics have absolutely no problem with, but the verse nowhere states that scripture is all sufficient.

“Thoroughly equipped” is also no problem either, but again, nowhere does it even imply that it is all sufficient, since one may be “thoroughly equipped” and still have need of something more to accomplish what one wants to do.

This verse is not neraly the proof text that n-Cs wish it was.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

Catholics believe that the Church which is the body of Christ (Eph 5:22-33) cannot officially teach error (Matt 16:18, 28:20), given that we understand that a Pope for example could never issue a heretical teaching for the flock to believe/obey and thus defile the Gospel. Here is a good catholic.com article that deals with the distinction between a pope being able to sin and a pope being able to teach error.

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.

Your second sentence is a presumption and is actually in conflict with the first sentence. Hermeneutics is about interpreting, so authority very much does reside with the Church authority. This isnt to put the Church and Bible againt eachother or to say Scripture teaches error, all we are saying is that the doctrine of Scripture ALONE is false and illogical.

As for hermeneutics being a “science”, you are correct to a certain extent, one method in interpreting does rely on drawing drawing our conclusions based on historical interpretations/teachings. From this we have parameters set from which to understand and futher understand any given teaching. That being said it isnt a “science” in that there is a specific formula that assures the individual the “right answer” for any given verse.

The revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exodus 34:27), and that written record of God’s Word became the basis for God’s covenant with the nation (Exodus 24:4, 7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses’ successor, Joshua: “Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night., so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it” Joshua 1:7 – 8).

That doesnt prove SS (Sola Scriptura) for many reasons, first of all those same OT Scriptures call for official teaching offices like priests, and also there was Scripture being produced from various prophets at various times, also in the Pentateuch (ie the first 5 books of the Bible) itself it talks about how Jewish leadership was to approach God if there were any questions they didnt know the answer to. On top of that there were clear leaders of the people God chose, for example Moses himself was the official leader of the people before and after they first received a written law and Joshua became his successor.