Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[benhur]

ok, I haven’t read about this. Can you remember a source?

HI rc,

Yes, but will have to dig it up at my mom’s. it is a book , hard cover on Notre Dame/Paris from an historic and architectural point of view. It talked extensively about how early churches that have been excavated or from drawings/records and how they would build two sections to the church, one for catechumen and one for the “initiated” (you did not want everyone in one main “room” and disrupt the service, for the catechumen would have to leave the service before the mystical Eucharist.). The next generation of churches did away with the catechumen room/section. Many times the new church was built over the old (as I think Notre Dame was). The author cited widespread infant baptism as the reason. Of course it could be that everyone by then had become Christian , with no new waves of “barbarians” or pagan immigrants invaders to be converted etc…

I’m sure the faith formation of children and adults has gone through different changes over the centuries.

I think so too.

What I’m defending here, is legitimate (Apostolic approved) Baptism of infants. I take this to heart, since I brought both my children to Baptism as infants.

Underrstand and am glad we both say scripture is not explicit.

So I ask, do you believe it is in the True Faith to practice Infant Baptism?

Yes and no. If it was done or when it was done,one then has to differentiate between the reasoning for it. Was it for removal of original sin, or was it for the sanctification of the children growing up in a Christian home, was it regenertional and Holy Spirit imparting , or was the infant required later on to “believe” like a confirmation ? These are many of the thoughts to be considered.

I personally do not like the implication that an infant is born again with it. Don’t mind doing infant baptism as a sanctification, or a dedication of the child to the Lord’s ways.Still prefer to wait to become a child/adult to have the opportunity to be baptized as a believer and skip the “confirmation”. Too many people think they are born again when they are not. Kind of like a P saying the sinners prayer for their infant thinking they are then saved. I do like the idea of godparents vowing to make sure to bring up the child in the faith, though in practice not sure many see it as a spiritual assignment. All extended family should take the vow.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Rita.

The happy birthday song…your kids probably know it, you know it, your mom knew it, her mom probably knew it, etc, etc.

But I think it’s not likely it’s written down and stored in a safe in your house?

Hi La,

It’s late and you have me laughing that we, I, am even gonna discuss it, that it might even be relevant (it is, very, good point/analogy again). But how do we know the song we sing is the original ? Did it evolve ? What are its origins ? For sure it is/was written down, and has been for some time, lyrics and music. We also sing recite the Our Father without needing the hymnal or Writ. It should be we knew more for sure ‘originals’, by heart.

Blessings

 

[commenter]

Yes, I’ve had this conversation with a lot of people. I realize that you stand by the Catholic view that everything doesn’t have to be in the Bible and that you have Tradition and the Magisterium. It seems though, to me, that if something can’t be explained as something that was written down that Catholics then rely on the other 2 - Tradition and Magisterium. I have not been convinced at all…it just seems like a new teaching when something is proclaimed as dogma or doctrine (sorry these 2 words confuse me right now). I mean, why wait to the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to proclaim the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. I can’t have confidence in the other teachings if I can’t understand that. Why didn’t the 1st and 2nd century church fathers pray to Mary or specifically speak to those two later doctrines…

Rita

In terms of “why wait”:
In the later parts of the Old Testament, there are certain truths affirmed much more clearly than earlier, such as resurrection of the dead. That doesn’t mean the truth was “invented” or fabricated, or that it wasn’t always true. It just means God clarifies certain truths at different times.

Likewise, certain aspects of the Trinity are definitely not expressed in the Bible; are only hinted at in the first 200 years; then fully clarified later. Protestants accept the later, post scriptural development of this doctrine. Protestants label as cults those groups, like the JWs, who quote only the Bible to (in their view) disprove the *developed *doctrine.

The whole written New Testament itself is a “development”. Jesus never wrote anything that we know of, and did not tell his apostles to write gospels, epistles, etc. In other words Tradition and Magisterium came first, then the NT canon. One could argue that if Jesus wanted a written New Testament, He would have said so. Having a written New Testament is a controversial development.

I was alive in the 1950s, and the Assumption of Mary was not one of the top 100 concerns then. It does not remotely sound like something that merely reflected what was on people’s minds at the moment.

 

[benhur]

In terms of “why wait”:
In the later parts of the Old Testament, there are certain truths affirmed much more clearly than earlier, such as resurrection of the dead. That doesn’t mean the truth was “invented” or fabricated, or that it wasn’t always true. It just means God clarifies certain truths at different times.

Likewise, certain aspects of the Trinity are definitely not expressed in the Bible; are only hinted at in the first 200 years; then fully clarified later. Protestants accept the later, post scriptural development of this doctrine. Protestants label as cults those groups, like the JWs, who quote only the Bible to (in their view) disprove the *developed *doctrine.

The whole written New Testament itself is a “development”. Jesus never wrote anything that we know of, and did not tell his apostles to write gospels, epistles, etc. In other words Tradition and Magisterium came first, then the NT canon. One could argue that if Jesus wanted a written New Testament, He would have said so. Having a written New Testament is a controversial development.

I was alive in the 1950s, and the Assumption of Mary was not one of the top 100 concerns then. It does not remotely sound like something that merely reflected what was on people’s minds at the moment.

HiC’

Looks like I have to get serious again, to answer your post. In all honesty the underlined has my dander up (and that just before bedtime).

I will keep it short . Jesus did tell a few apostles and closest associates to write the 27, just as Jesus surely told OT prophets to say orally and per Writ , “Thus sayeth the Lord…”. Last I heard Jesus is quite alive and with us.

That the church pre-existed and is a receiver of the gift of Writ, does not make her equal authoritatively to that gift thereafter. But for sure the church is more authoritative thru that Writ (hence considered a complimentary,superlative, gift, a non competing gift).

As to controversial development yes and no. Yes that some formality or institutional canonization took place. No in that it was an informal , though strict and serious tradition, that also gave us the eventual 27 books, before the council. It did not take Eusebius very long to get consensus for twenty seven books for a "bible’ when requested by Constantine, also before any council.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

It’s late and you have me laughing that we, I, am even gonna discuss it, that it might even be relevant (it is, very, good point/analogy again). But how do we know the song we sing is the original ? Did it evolve ? What are its origins ? For sure it is/was written down, and has been for some time, lyrics and music. We also sing recite the Our Father without needing the hymnal or Writ. It should be we knew more for sure ‘originals’, by heart.

Blessings

Glad I could make you laugh, benhur, it’s good for our health

Well, going back to my original thought on this, How important is it? Since Mary is not our savior, Jesus is? Since Mary is not providing grace for us, the sacraments are. Protestants have their “essentials and non-essentials”. Mary’s status might be classified as "non-essential"or of less concern.

Councils with official doctrine are a response to heresy/major objections to organic beliefs already within the Church. Nicea was a response to Arianism. II Nicea a response to Iconoclasm and of course Trent a response to reformers, etc…

Even the early reformers of Luther and Calvin still held the blessed Mother in high regard. Wasn’t until later that modern men with modern and faulty ideas started saying she was not a virgin, etc, etc. And I think that explains the timing on her status finally becoming official.

I’ve admitted there is really no pastristic writing on the Immaculate conception. And if there is, I am unaware of it.

One thing I would suggest to give assurance that Rome didn’t just pull this out of thin air, is to fully explore the Eastern Orthodox position on her. We know the split happened in 1054 but they were already going their separate ways centuries before this. What you will find is that the beliefs are very similar it’s just the EO’s have not made things official.

In the Orthodox church she has the title "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary"

Mother of God, free of personal sin and ever-virgin. They also share the belief that she was assumed.

Now, they like to point to the rosary and the official RCC dogma on her as being excessive on our behalf, but they, themselves, make the statement "Most Holy Theotokos, save us"

youtube.com/watch?v=-JS82x5WVE8

And, BTW, if you pin them down on purgatory you get them to admit that something like that takes place at the hour of our death. They just refuse to define it and don’t want Rome’s titles.

The Lord be with you.

 

[rcwitness]

HI rc,

Yes, but will have to dig it up at my mom’s. it is a book , hard cover on Notre Dame/Paris from an historic and architectural point of view. It talked extensively about how early churches that have been excavated or from drawings/records and how they would build two sections to the church, one for catechumen and one for the “initiated” (you did not want everyone in one main “room” and disrupt the service, for the catechumen would have to leave the service before the mystical Eucharist.). The next generation of churches did away with the catechumen room/section. Many times the new church was built over the old (as I think Notre Dame was). The author cited widespread infant baptism as the reason. Of course it could be that everyone by then had become Christian , with no new waves of “barbarians” or pagan immigrants invaders to be converted etc…

Sounds interesting. It was a time of great challenge for the orthodox faith. Many attempts arose to challenge important matters. I imagine She saw an importance to keep the member’s devotion protected from an overwhelming distraction of “morbidly curious outsiders”, while still seeing a need to provide an educational setting for instructing.

Underrstand and am glad we both say scripture is not explicit.

This seems significant to me, regarding Sola Scriptura! I realize you do not embrace I.B. but Lutherans, and most denominations do.

Yes and no. If it was done or when it was done,one then has to differentiate between the reasoning for it. Was it for removal of original sin, or was it for the sanctification of the children growing up in a Christian home, was it regenertional and Holy Spirit imparting , or was the infant required later on to “believe” like a confirmation ? These are many of the thoughts to be considered.

I don’t understand why these actions are opposed to one another, or have to be considered ‘one or the other’? The infant is definitely required to believe, AND the Holy Spirit has personally washed away the sin that separates them from God. Paul, in Corinthians I believe, comments about children of believers being made clean. I see this as likely evidence of being Baptized. And not merely on account of water Baptism, but through the faithfulness of even one Christian parent. Because that is what brought the child to the Water.

I personally do not like the implication that an infant is born again with it. Don’t mind doing infant baptism as a sanctification, or a dedication of the child to the Lord’s ways.Still prefer to wait to become a child/adult to have the opportunity to be baptized as a believer and skip the “confirmation”. Too many people think they are born again when they are not. Kind of like a P saying the sinners prayer for their infant thinking they are then saved. I do like the idea of godparents vowing to make sure to bring up the child in the faith, though in practice not sure many see it as a spiritual assignment. All extended family should take the vow.

I don’t like to base what I believe about Baptism and Sacraments on how people react to them or what they think afterwards. I have seen equally disturbing reactions from Evangelicals who were raised as such and are in their 40’s yet still are not Baptized and have trouble understanding what Baptism means. They then have to construct a meaning which does not conform to Scripture’s Teachings about it. And they place little importance on it, since they have to conclude that it does not impart forgiveness of sins.

 

[commenter]

HiC’

That the church pre-existed and is a receiver of the gift of Writ, does not make her equal authoritatively to that gift thereafter. But for sure the church is more authoritative thru that Writ (hence considered a complimentary,superlative, gift, a non competing gift).

As to controversial development yes and no. Yes that some formality or institutional canonization took place. No in that it was an informal , though strict and serious tradition, that also gave us the eventual 27 books…

Blessings

You used singular for the words “canonization” and “tradition”; keep in mind there were a few different rival canonizations and rival “strict and serious” traditions of various books being “inspired”.

In other words, it is not like an autopilot that led inevitably to one canon, but a discretionary, controversial selection of certain works, based on certain traditions, and rejection of other scriptures, based on other traditions. You might say the Early Church Fathers supported this canon; but we can say that now because some visible human authority that chose the canon also designated certain scholars as “Early Church Fathers” and declared other scholars, with “strict and serious” traditions who promoted other canons, as heretics. As a Catholic I put confidence not in a blind ancient process but a specific magisterium, which I think is the same one we see today.

We both agree it was God who inspired the canon.

 

[rcwitness]

Too many people think they are born again when they are not. Kind of like a P saying the sinners prayer for their infant thinking they are then saved.

Can we put this in the context of Paul’s wisdom regarding a Christian married to an unbeliever?

1 Cor.

*To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.14For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.15But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.16Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Now, I don’t want to make a mountain of theology over this passage. But can we agree that Paul Teaches the faith of a believer does place his/her child in a clean state before God?

I won’t assume he is referring to Baptism, but that we can at least see that our children are unclean as offspring of unbelievers, yet made clean as a child of a believer?

This, to me, gives stronger evidence that we have a right to bring them to Baptism than hindering them. Especially when both parents are believers.

Though I think it’s possible Paul is implying the unbeliever, in the example, has allowed the believer to follow his/her faith to bring the children into Baptism. And in this way, the unbeliever is also consecrated through not resisting the faith, even though they may not be fully accepting it themselves.

You see, we consider “belief” and “Baptism” to be bound together. And as for an infant, the belief is on behalf of the parents until the child is able to accept or reject. And in the meantime, they are made (and being made) clean through the forgiveness of Baptism and the commitment to instruct and provide exemplary faithful lives for their children.

 

[spedteacherita]

Hi. I’ve been only marginally participating on this thread, but I would say this: all Christians are or should be struggling … but I wonder if your struggles have more to do with thinking about RC teaching than thinking about Lutheran teaching?

Do you mean do I filter RC teaching with my Lutheran teaching? Or, am I too worried about Rc teaching and should more worry about Lutheran teaching?

Peace!

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

Hi Rita.

The happy birthday song…your kids probably know it, you know it, your mom knew it, her mom probably knew it, etc, etc.

But I think it’s not likely it’s written down and stored in a safe in your house?

Yes, an okay analogy but the Tradition in the Catholic Church is not something that is shared with everyone. Pope Francis could come up with something that he says is from Tradition and it could become part of Catholic doctrine? Do you see what I mean?

Thanks for your response!

Rita

 

[Peter_J]

Or, am I too worried about Rc teaching and should more worry about Lutheran teaching?

Well, I wasn’t exactly saying you *shouldn’t *be more concerned with RC teaching than with Lutheran teaching, just that I find it surprising.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yes, an okay analogy but the Tradition in the Catholic Church is not something that is shared with everyone. Pope Francis could come up with something that he says is from Tradition and it could become part of Catholic doctrine? Do you see what I mean?

Thanks for your response!

Rita

Rita, please see my post to Benhur (#338) about objectively exploring Marian beliefs in the EO church which split from us a very long time ago.

Almost the same thing. That is solid evidence that the Pontiff isn’t just pulling things out of thin air in 1800 or 1900’s.

We have had bad popes throughout the ages but none of them have taught error on matters of faith and morals.

I’m not accusing you of this, but many of our protestant friends approach these topics with presuppositions that Catholicism has to be wrong. And I think that’s a non productive approach for any of us to take.

The Lord be with you!

 

[Peter_J]

Interesting read - I would sum that up as “somebody has to repent of error.” Our human hearts militate against that even though we long for unity.

I guess you could say that. In any case, clearly Hutchens paid attention and understood that TCC and TOC each lay claim to being the true church, not some kind of “Branch Theory”.

 

[PJM]

Will pray for your medical.

Thank you so very much!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I’ve had this conversation with a lot of people. I realize that you stand by the Catholic view that everything doesn’t have to be in the Bible and that you have Tradition and the Magisterium. It seems though, to me, that if something can’t be explained as something that was written down that Catholics then rely on the other 2 - Tradition and Magisterium. I have not been convinced at all…it just seems like a new teaching when something is proclaimed as dogma or doctrine (sorry these 2 words confuse me right now). I mean, why wait to the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to proclaim the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. I can’t have confidence in the other teachings if I can’t understand that. Why didn’t the 1st and 2nd century church fathers pray to Mary or specifically speak to those two later doctrines…

Again, my Catholic friends, I don’t mean to be disrespectful at all to the RCC teachings. It is just circling around in my brain with no place to be settled and resolved.

Are the Traditions of the Apostles written down? It seems that would be a great way to be able to look at them as they were taught and be able to see the other things that were taught.

I hope you can understand my struggle…

God bless all!

Rita

Hi Rita,
My reply will be in 2 Parts so that I can better address the 2 issues you raise. This is pt 1

1st things first:

Were Sola Scriptura what God intended {it’s not}, He God, could have & would have dictated the bibles New Testament, {Seriously}, rather than choosing to inspire it, relying on mortal men to do His Bidding.

HOW can we know this to be the truth?

Exegesis: the study of the Bible …

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Agape_Bible_Studies_Menu.php

Has determined that the bible as we know it {73 book} were not-fully- authored until the End of the 1st Century, or very early 2nd Century.

Jesus was Crucified and arose from the Dead between A.D. 30 & A.D. 36. Hence the bible could NOT have existed for more than 60 years prior to its complete-authorship. The Canon of the Bible was not set until the 4th Century. Meaning the Bible was evidently NOT an absolute requirement for the teaching and spreading of the Faith. Indeed, {the NT} was itself being birthed; brought to light from 36 A.D to the Early 2nd Century. What was taught and shared , by the Infant Church was by WORD of Mouth & a few “letters” from the Apostles.

John 14:26
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you

What you’re not fully grasping Rita, is the Power of the Key’s; & the absolutely essential need for a hierarchy of authority; WITH Power and authority to actually Govern & GROW
the Church {singular} as commanded by Jesus. Personally; directly & exclusively

** Mt 28: 19-20 **
“Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

John 14:26
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
So EITHER: the bible was NOT in an absolute sense “essential” to the foundation & growth of the INFANT Church {singular}, or the Church didn’t begin for between 60-300 years AFTER Christ Death. History solidly disproves this possibility.

Secondly is the evidence that I shared about Jn 20: 30-31 & Jn 21: 24-25; which clearly state that NOT everything was intended to be included in the bible.

PLEASE see pt 2 for the “Birthing of Catholic Doctrine &
Dogma”

 

[PJM]

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I’ve had this conversation with a lot of people. I realize that you stand by the Catholic view that everything doesn’t have to be in the Bible and that you have Tradition and the Magisterium. It seems though, to me, that if something can’t be explained as something that was written down that Catholics then rely on the other 2 - Tradition and Magisterium. I have not been convinced at all…it just seems like a new teaching when something is proclaimed as dogma or doctrine (sorry these 2 words confuse me right now). I mean, why wait to the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to proclaim the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. I can’t have confidence in the other teachings if I can’t understand that. Why didn’t the 1st and 2nd century church fathers pray to Mary or specifically speak to those two later doctrines…

Again, my Catholic friends, I don’t mean to be disrespectful at all to the RCC teachings. It is just circling around in my brain with no place to be settled and resolved.

Are the Traditions of the Apostles written down? It seems that would be a great way to be able to look at them as they were taught and be able to see the other things that were taught.

I hope you can understand my struggle…

God bless all!

Rita

**Here’s pt 2

The “Birthing” of Catholic Doctrine & Dogma**

1st “Doctrine” is what is “officially” taught to be believed by the Magisterium
“Dogma” takes Doctrine to a higher level as it becomes INFALLIBLY defined

The “birthing process” is as follows:

Within the Universal CC a Doctine begins as a pious belief nurtured as a seedling, by a small but dedicated group whose belief is spread and accepted by more and larger groups. {Sacred Traditions} As this is expanded geographically to include THAT particular belief in multiple churches, & in multiple regions; Bishops can individually or jointly petition Rome to declare this “new belief”; be declared a “Catholic Doctrine”; after careful and prayerful consideration and acceptance by Rome; NORMALLY with consultation of the MAGISTERIUM, it can be declared a mandated Doctrine of the RCC.
Sacred Tradition: loyolapress.com/the-spirit-of-truth-sacred-tradition-of-the-church.htm

Normally “Doctrines” only come into being when a particular belief or practice is CHALLANGED, either from outside Her ranks or within the CC itself. Prior to this declaration, the belief falls under } personal pious practices and beliefs.” Sacred Tradition is most often channeled through Church Councils; and of course Divinely Inspired.
Unchallenged, but widely accepted and practiced beliefs remain as Sacred Traditions.

Mt. 28: 18-20 “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded {means both taught & commanded} YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Jn. 17: 17-20 “Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”

This site gives a fuller explanation of Doctrine and Dogma’s.

Library : The Development of Doctrine | Catholic Culture

As to you query about written evidence of the Early Fathers. Space prohibits posting the evidence here; BUT here are some sites that REALLY ought to be read.

The Early Church Fathers

**http://www.staycatholic.com/about_the_early_fathers.htm
&
catholicbridge.com/catholic/early_church_fathers.php

catholicbible101.com/theearlychurchfathers.htm

newadvent.org/fathers**/

Rita, I consider these as MUST READ to gain the kind of insights you seek
God Bless you, I wish we had a lot more space so I could have further developed this information

God Bless you, please let me know if you have further questions.
PJM

 

[PJM]

Hi. I’ve been only marginally participating on this thread, but I would say this: all Christians are or should be struggling … but I wonder if your struggles have more to do with thinking about RC teaching than thinking about Lutheran teaching?

Be-careful NOT to discourage one’s SEARCH for The {singular] Truth

“THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH” … Pope Benedict XVI

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi Rita.

The happy birthday song…your kids probably know it, you know it, your mom knew it, her mom probably knew it, etc, etc.

But I think it’s not likely it’s written down and stored in a safe in your house?

VERY Good:thumbsup:

BUT please see my POST #348 & 349 on this STRING

 

[Lenten_ashes]

VERY Good:thumbsup:

BUT please see my POST #348 & 349 on this STRING

I read them and agree.

.

 

[alwayswill]

**
OK BUT:shrug:

Are Mt 16:18-19

Mt 18:18

John 6:47-57

John 17:17-20

John 20:19-23

Mt 28:1-20

JUST MISUNDERSTOOD or are they wrong? They certainly are NOT widely-accepted
outside of the CC.**

God Bless you; my friend, you can’t have it both ways

PJM

I have never heard such a claim before
of course they are widely accepted by Sola Scriptura practicing Christians