They usually quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or something similar.Protestants believe in “Scripture only.”
Well, if that is the case, and they only get their information from Scripture, then answer this question:
Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture only”?
It doesn’t say scripture onlyProtestants believe in “Scripture only.”
Well, if that is the case, and they only get their information from Scripture, then answer this question:
Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture only”?
Shoe-Protestants believe in “Scripture only.”
Well, if that is the case, and they only get their information from Scripture, then answer this question:
Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture only”?
That is because sola scriptura, the rapture, and the whole idea in a ‘personal savior’ (no Church needed), are all unbiblical!!Shoe-
We’ve been down this path many times before, so don’t be too surprised if no Protestants rise to take your bait.
They know it’s a losing proposition for them.
I realize that Roman Catholics must, by necessity, strongly oppose the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but let us not falsely equate the doctrine with the sham doctrines of the “rapture”, and also with the peculiar doctrines of the “happy and clappy”, “Jesus and me” crowd.That is because sola scriptura, the rapture, and the whole idea in a ‘personal savior’ (no Church needed), are all unbiblical!!
Therefore, by this statement of St. Peter himself, it is belief in the Gospel–that pure, saving, and imperishable Word–that is sufficent, of itself, to purify the soul.**“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for
‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’
And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” ** [vv. 22-25]
The Word of God is a living Word which is entrusted to the Church which can be written or oral (in the form of Sacred Tradition). Both make up the Word of God. Sola Scriptura does not make sense, because even the Bible itself states that “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book…” (John 20:30)I realize that Roman Catholics must, by necessity, strongly oppose the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but let us not falsely equate the doctrine with the sham doctrines of the “rapture”, and also with the peculiar doctrines of the “happy and clappy”, “Jesus and me” crowd.
Scripture, time and time again, refers the despairing sinner to *its own *promises, namely, the forgiveness of sins for the Christ’s sake. It never refers us to something that contradicts or extends beyond the written word (to say that St. Paul’s words: *"…whether by word or by letter" *means otherwise is clearly a desperate effort to support a crumbling foundation).
As St. Peter writes in his first epistle:
Therefore, by this statement of St. Peter himself, it is belief in the Gospel–that pure, saving, and imperishable Word–that is sufficent, of itself, to purify the soul.
WALTHER
Scripture only believers wont admit it but that belief leads to a religious subjectivism. One person can say you don’t have to go to church on Sunday and another says you do. etc.Protestants believe in “Scripture only.”
Well, if that is the case, and they only get their information from Scripture, then answer this question:
Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture only”?
I don’t see how these two verses debunk sola scriptura that much. The first says that Jesus did and said more things than these pages - the Protestant could claim well that was covered in the other books of the Bible or that those are non-essential to salvation, that God has given us sufficient knowledge with what we have. The second verse from Thessalonians could merely say it was nice of St. Paul to remind them to stay fast to the traditions transmitted orally, but that they could simply be a cultural specific thing or a whole host of reasonable and unreasonable explanations why the written word is good enough to contain the enitrety of what’s necessary.It doesn’t say scripture only
John 21:25 Douay-Rheims
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 Douay-Rheims
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
These 2 verses debunk Sola Scriptura and prove the necessity of Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching
well I am not the only one on this thread that has used these scripture verses. The verse in red implies sacred tradition. No where in scripture does it say that scripture alone is effiecent for salvation. Please provide any verse that may imply that. I do agree with you on the last paragraph you have typed. Examine this from the Haydock Bible commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:14 and John 21:25I don’t see how these two verses debunk sola scriptura that much. The first says that Jesus did and said more things than these pages - the Protestant could claim well that was covered in the other books of the Bible or that those are non-essential to salvation, that God has given us sufficient knowledge with what we have. The second verse from Thessalonians could merely say it was nice of St. Paul to remind them to stay fast to the traditions transmitted orally, but that they could simply be a cultural specific thing or a whole host of reasonable and unreasonable explanations why the written word is good enough to contain the enitrety of what’s necessary.
If quoting those verses helps a protestant disbelieve sola scriptura, great, but I don’t see it as a conclusive argument. In fact, if for some reason, those two verses never existed, I still think we could easily see how sola scriptura is groundless. My two main reasons against sola scriptura appeal more to common sense. First, is that Scripture wouldn’t even exist without an authoritative Church to decide what exactly is (canonical) Holy Scripture. Second, unless Jesus really wanted to ensure chaos among his future disciples over the millenia, which I personally think sounds absurd, he would have to provide us a teaching authority, the Church, to be resonspible for teaching and transmitting Scripture to us. The Protestants only have they tyranny of their own interpretation and that descends into chaos quite quickly.
Luther acknowledged that he had received Holy Scripture from the Catholic Church. But, Protestants have also considered the Catholic church to be apostate and it was long an article of faith for them to call the Church the Whore of Babylon.Protestants believe in “Scripture only.”
Well, if that is the case, and they only get their information from Scripture, then answer this question:
Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture only”?
Well, two things come to mind:As St. Peter writes in his first epistle:
“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for
‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’
And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” [vv. 22-25]
Therefore, by this statement of St. Peter himself, it is belief in the Gospel–that pure, saving, and imperishable Word–that is sufficent, of itself, to purify the soul.
To compare the Word of God with a recipe or a country’s constitution clealry demonstrates your low view of Scripture, as Christ’s Word does not merely make faith and salvation possible (as do recipes make cupcakes possible, and constitutions make governing possible) but rather* actual*, working and engendering true faith in the believing sinner.Well, two things come to mind:
- Why do you equate “Word” exclusively with “writing”? I am reminded of the example of Apollos in Acts ch 18 (???), who despite being might in the scriptures, was nonetheless deficient in his understanding of the Gospel, and his relationship to the Body of Christ was defective. It would appear that the writings (graphe) and oral accounts of Jesus were insufficient to bring him to full knowledge (what Peter would term epignosis) of the gospel-- Apollos required the intervention and correction of Paul and his helpers.
- Even if we accept that the NT contains all the data God intended to provide humanity, it does not follow that the NT is the only source of authority, or that one need only read the NT to obtain salvation. Having a recipe (sufficient data) does not mean that you have a cupcake. Consider also that the US Constitution contains all the data necessary to constitute the US, but it expressly creates a legislature with law creating authority, and a Supreme Court with the authority to pronounce law. Similarly, as we follow the example of Apollos into ch 19, we find that simply knowing everything there is to read about Jesus does not mean that one can obtain baptism or confect the Eucharist.
Thus the imperishable seed, of which the believers have been born anew, is the word. St. Peter then identifies this, first, with Scripture (‘All flesh is like grass’, etc.), and, second, with the “good news that was preached to you.”"Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for
‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’
And this word is the good news that was preached to you." [vv. 22-25]
to the contrary, i was merely using examples to illustrate my point regarding the logical defects in your argument. i know it’s tough to be a Lutheran on a Catholic forum, and i am sure many have made false and uncharitable implications of your faith and beliefs. however, i would appreciate it if you did not do so of mine.To compare the Word of God with a recipe or a country’s constitution clealry demonstrates your low view of Scripture
I must point out that it necessarily follows from your argument that everyone who merely reads the Bible would be saved. I guess before we go much further, I should ask whether you believe Sola Scriptura to mean that Scripture contains the entire deposit of the Christian faith, or that one may obtain salvation simply by reading Scripture alone, or both.Christ’s Word does not merely make faith and salvation possible (as do recipes make cupcakes possible, and constitutions make governing possible) but rather* actual*, working and engendering true faith in the believing sinner.
Thus the imperishable seed, of which the believers have been born anew, is the word. St. Peter then identifies this, first, with Scripture (‘All flesh is like grass’, etc.), and, second, with the “good news that was preached to you.”
your analysis is simply incorrect. we are not born again of “words”; that doesn’t make logical or theological sense (Jesus death and resurrection would be operative whether or not anyone ever wrote a single letter about it). it does make sense, however, if we view “word” as the Logos as used by John. But even accepting your reading as accurate, you still haven’t shown why “word” must only be the written word.Unless the Gospel is anything other than the death of Christ on behalf of sinners, so that those who repent and believe, by the power of the Holy Spirit, are given a true and justifying faith, being preserved to the end by the gracious hand of the God, then you are left to concede that this Word is, as St. Peter identifies it, “the living and abiding word”, by which we are born of God.
First of all, I don’t think you speak for the majority of Lutherns in the ECLA branch of your Church that recently don’t appear as orthodox as you are. I agree that the Word of God as it appears in the Holy Scriptures (assembled and canonized by the Catholic Church) are the inerrant Word of God. The Pope and the rest of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach anything that contradicts the Holy Scriptures. As The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself states: “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.” (CCC 86)Lutherans also understand the Scriptures within the context of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is the Church which carries forth and promulgates the Scriptures in every age, and the Church which is called to be faithful to the Word of God as she carries them. We know that the Word of God is powerful, that faith comes by hearing it, and that by faith grace is received unto salvation. We preach the Word of God, because God promised that His Word will never fail, nor falter-- we might be free to reject it, but it does not lose its inherent dignity based on our own evil response. We recognize that there is a history of interpretation to the Holy Scriptures, and that no one can interpret it by themselves… it is a Word held in community, held in the very Body of Christ, the Church.
This ‘papal system’ you refer to is ‘The Church,’ which was established by Jesus Christ through his Apostles and around 107 A.D. was called the ‘Catholic Church’ by Ignatius of Antioch (who was a Bishop in the Church). Protestants didn’t break away from a system, they broke away from ‘The Church’.So, when Lutherans stood on “Scripture Alone” in the 16th century, it was against a papal system which had deviated from both the Scriptures and the faithful Fathers. Lutherans argued for a simple faith and piety of the Patristic age, and Rome argued for… well, they argued for something else, based on high-medieval scholasticism, Aristotle, and Peter Lombard. Today, Lutherans still confess “Scripture Alone,” but in a catholic context that does not sever us from either the One Holy Church nor the ancient Fathers, nor the historic creeds. While the purported traditions which have been “handed down” can be called into question and challenged for their veracity, the Word of God continues to be God’s unalterable Word to us, His Church. Hence, Lutherans judge tradition by the Scriptures.
Grace and peace,
i don’t think that position can be supported from scripture. As negative evidence, isn’t the Church the pillar and bulwark of truth? As competing affirmative evidence (i.e., excluding scripture as “the sole source and norm of Christian teaching and practice”), weren’t the apostles given authority to bind and loose, and to forgive and retain? Those functions are central to both Christian teaching and (especially) practice. If a recalcitrant brother sins, eventually he is to be brought before the Church? The implication is that Church has authority to judge the sin (i.e., heterodoxy or heteropraxis), and the authority to make correction. Finally, I again return to the example of Apollos, who needed supplemental instruction, not contained in the NT, in order to fully understand the gospelWe believe, teach, and confess that what is recorded in Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God, and as such, it is the bedrock of what the Church believes, teaches, and confesses… i.e., it is the sole source and norm of Christian teaching and practice.
Is it? How do you know that the Gospel was written by Matthew? Do you know where it came from? How do you know what your Bible purports to be a Gospel of Matthew is what St. Matthew wrote (if in fact he wrote anything at all)?It is uniquely verifiable, uniquely objective, and genuinely catholic for all Christians.
how do you know which, of the many thousands, of documents purporting to be the word of god(s) are authentic? It seems like maybe you are presupposing the authenticity of the NT.The written words of the Prophets and the Apostles stand not on the individual prophet nor apostle, but on the God who speaks through them.
where does God promise this?God promised that His Word will never fail, nor falter.
Well then why were the councils necessary? And how did Scripture select itself, since, as you point out, there was quite a bit of dissent over what qualified as “Scripture”? I invite you to examine some of the discussions of which, and why, books were chosen. Moreover, what did these Fathers and Bishops assume the Christian would already know, and therefore wasn’t necessary to include?The Fathers were never perfectly united in their interpretation nor application of the Scriptures… hence the Councils, where at least in the first 7, the bishops gathered together to figure out how to settle conflicts amidst the bishops, based on the Word of God. If you read the canons of the seven ecumenical councils, you’ll find this to be so.
well, this is a conclusion based on a premise that we will obviously dispute, so there isn’t much more to say…So, when Lutherans stood on “Scripture Alone” in the 16th century, it was against a papal system which had deviated from both the Scriptures and the faithful Fathers. Lutherans argued for a simple faith and piety of the Patristic age, and Rome argued for… well, they argued for something else, based on high-medieval scholasticism, Aristotle, and Peter Lombard. Today, Lutherans still confess “Scripture Alone,” but in a catholic context that does not sever us from either the One Holy Church nor the ancient Fathers, nor the historic creeds. While the purported traditions which have been “handed down” can be called into question and challenged for their veracity, the Word of God continues to be God’s unalterable Word to us, His Church. Hence, Lutherans judge tradition by the Scriptures.