Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[larry_m]

Thankyou Pixie for your comments. I can’t agree with you more that you, as a Catholic, don’t agree with me, as a Protestant, with my interpretation of Scripture. I on the same note am a Protestant because I don’t agree with the unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church. That doesn’t make us enemies. Just different in our coming to truth. Thankyou James for your explanation. That helps me to understand where you are coming from. I sure appreciate these discussions. We are to have an answer for our faith. I have come across too many Protestants who have no idea why they are Protestants. I have to agree with a prominent Protestant who stated,“There are alot of Protestants, but very little Protetantism”. May the Eternal Spirit guide us into all Truth as it is in our Savior.

 

[guanophore]

The way you put it here would be illogical and i agree but that’s not the way it was. The church has always had a written scripture.
What we see in the Catholic church is in part a drifting way from what the Scriptures teach on a number of different doctrines and practices.

This is a somewhat disingenuous accusation, ja4. The Church had the OT that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. The Church determined that it was the Septuagint that was inspired, since that is the version they used. However, the total and full gospel was committed to the Apostles by Jesus before a word of the NT was ever written.

The NT reflects Catholic Teaching entirely, which is why there is never a conflict between scripture and the Teachings. The both come from the same Source.

What you are noticing about “drifting” is actually a drifting of ecclesial communities more and more away from Apostolic Teaching. This is based on the error of Sola Scriptura. Founding one’s faith on this error creates increasing drift from the Truth.

.
Keep in mind that you and all catholics must interpret what the church says and not all catholics interpretations of what the church says are identical.

This is absolutely true. This is one of the main reasons why authority is necessary. When people disagree, then Jesus said “take it to the Church”. The Church is the standard, and not the individual members of it.

.
Secondly, where did Jesus promise that He would protect the church from error? He never did.

Well, we read it differently.

When He promised to guide the Apostles into “all Truth” we take His word for that. When He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail, we recognize that the teaching of error is passing through the gates of hell.

. Rather He and His apostles warned there would be false teachers who would come into the church itself and decieve others.

Don’t worry, ja4, we know you are here, and we are watching you carefully!

:knight2:

. Just because something is logical does not mean its true. What we must look at are the claims of the doctrines and what are they based on. Only in this way can we know if they are true.

You are right. We discern the truth by what was revealed to us by God.

In a sense this is not correct. The church was built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. It would be best to take that what is being referred to here are the teachings of the apostles and prophets which forms the foundation for the church.

Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,

Not just the teachings, but the practices too, and the holiness of who they are.

Prophets in particular provide divine guidance, necessary to the Church.

Yes, just as any other fallible man could be. No church, man or institution is infallible.

I agree, but this is one point where I say that you have yet to master the basics of Christian Teaching. The Church is infallible because of the divine elements, not the man made elements.

?
Are you speaking of the actual authors of the Scriptures?

Yes. In your arrogance and ignorance, you have purported that you know more about what they meant than the writers themselves!

Just because hands are laid on someone does not guarantee that those who have had this done will always teach the truth. It does not gurantee it.

This is true. However, God is able to preserve His word.

It is true the Scriptures have been twisted. It is also true the Catholic church has always interpreted them correctly either.

And by what standard would you judge that? Since the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, perhaps you are using the wrong context?

Would you say the Marian doctrines are essential to believe for you?

You have such a compulsion, have you not? Are you unable to restrain yourself from derailing a thread with this?

 

[chosensinner]

To my friend, Chosensinner. I take it you are a Protestant. If so, please explain how the Protestant world lives by SS when it was disproven at the council of Trent concerning them keeping a spurious Sabbath set up by the Papacy, which they agreed with in their article of faith. Please google, Romes Challenge; Why do Protestants Keep Sunday. Please look up Romes own writings, A Doctrinal Catechism, by Rev.Stephen Keenan,p.174, Rev. Dr.Butlers Catechism, revised,p.57, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, by Msgr. Segur,p.213, The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, by Peter Geiermann,p.50. Please notice that the fourth commandment was changed to the third & all it says is, Remember the Sabbth day to keep it holy. It completely leaves out the rest which tells you which day. These are but a few of Catholic writings concerning the un-Scriptural change of the Sabbath. If you are not a Protestant, all this information probably means nothing to you. Please get a blessing in your search for truth, as we all here are endeavoring to do.

I think that you mis-understand the essence of Sola Scriptura. Perhaps you are under the impression that we reject all tradition; we do not. Please look up my definition of Sola Scriptura- for it says nothing about Scripture alone being all that we have. This is a caricature of our doctrine. Sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture alone is God-breathed and the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith.

I don’t have to make a case ZERO tradition, because that is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura entails.

Also- I am not searching for Truth- because Truth has found me, and His name is Jesus Christ. He has sought me, and has conquered my heart! He has forgiven me of all my sins, and has revealed this to me through a God-given faith- (which is the evidence of things not seen).

I thank you though- for your professed concern.

 

[guanophore]

I did not say that Sola Scriptura was not taught in the Bible.

NOW- if you ask me whether Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible, I will say- YES it is. And let me remind you that Sola Scriptura (as you may wish to define it is but a straw man).

However- Sola Scriptura- as it is properly defined in Historic Protestantism is certainly made plain in Scripture. Would you all like to begin a discussion of this?

The thread is about the fact that Protestants don’t really believe in it. It seems to me that it cannot be found in scripture, so it makes sense that every Protestant relies on his own perceptions.

I originally thought that this thread was on whether or not Protestants truly keep this teaching and practice it- not whether it is true or not. But I am willing to discuss either. I began with a proper definition of the Doctrine- and now maybe we can look at a few simple passages: Fair enough?

Let’s begin with 2 Thes. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

I love this passage! Because from a plain and simple reading of it- Sola Scriptura is easily established.

He who has ears to hear- Let him hear!

I can’t make any sense of this assertion at all. It seems to me that it is clear that what was taught was equal, whether it was in writing or by word.

 

[guanophore]

Thankyou James. My question is, were the disciples not using Scripture to prove to their unbelieving brothers the Messiahship of Our Savior? There are over 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah & 60 major ones in the Torah, Law, Prophets, Psalms, & writings. It doesn’t make sense that they would use extra Scriptural evidence to prove who Yeshua was. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut my brother.

Yes, they did show from the Law, Prophets, and the Writings that Jesus is the Christ. However, the manner in which they interpreted these scriptures was by Revelation of the HS. Jesus HImself, through His apostles, showed how all these passages related to Himself. This is what Jesus did with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. He “opened their minds to the scriptures”. This is the function of Sacred Tradition.

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou Chosensinner for your reply. My thoughts on SS is no tradition outside of Scripture is safe. There are traditions I keep that are Scriptural. As far as searching for truth, yes our Precious Savior came down & found us. But I still am searching for more revelations of Truth as it is in our Savior since Truth is never ending like our Savior, Father & Spirit are eternal in ever expanding Truth. Sorry if you misunderstood me. I sure would like it if some Protestant would read all the information I have given concerning the Council of Trent & the other writings about the Catholics honesty about her changing the Sabbath, for which she states there is no Scriptural authority. My Protestant friends who say they stand on Scripture, having no authority but the Catholic Church for keeping Sunday. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[pneuma07]

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that

• Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Church. It teaches that

-the Church and all tradition must be subordinated and held accountable to the Scriptures, in that Scripture ALONE is God-breathed and therefore our only infallible rule of faith. It also teaches that

-all that is necessary for salvation is made plain in Scripture, so that an individual, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone, can understand the essentials of salvation and of the Christian life. It also teaches that

all that is necessary to be believed for faith and morals is clearly revealed in Scripture.
]

Hi chosensinner,

 let me say first that I respect very much and enjoy your contribution here, and welcome to CAF. :)

In considering yours as well as other definitions of SS, the real question I consider we have to tackle is this: we’re a speaking about a text, the Sacred Text. You tell me Scripture is the ultimate authority ( I hope Christ is, for every christian, BTW.
Obvious as it may sound, this should lead us to consider where the locus of visible available authority can be after AD 33 ( or 30 ) ),it tells me perspucously everything necessary for salvation , for faith and morals. But, under what conditions ?

In other words, nothing is explained here about the CONtext within which the text has to be approached.
I wrote something on this line in posts 284 and 286. You may
want to give your impressions about them.

IMHO three main solutions have been proposed as far as the CONtext is concerned ( all admit the Holy Spirit is necessary this or that way, so that does not amount to real distinctions, IMHO):

1. Myself ( pure perspicuity, or so called SOLO Scriptura approach)
2. My own denomination, with its ministry and traditions ( “denominational SS”, the one which appears practically followed in faith communities), and …with its founder(s), who
   happened to adhere to answer 1), and so had to “go by the Bible” out of their original faith comunity.
3. The life of the Apostolic Church (catholic answer).

There is much confusion, IMHO, on this text-CONtext issue.

This is why many brothers put it like this: “we have Scripture you have the Church”.

All of us have Scripture, the text ( we got it though the Apostolic Church, BTW).
Then we manifestly differ about the CONtext. Everyone has a context, consciously or not.
The strange thing is, those who choose answer 1) or answer 2),
appear often to maintain that it amounts to declaring Scripture “perpicuous”, and that answer 3) means Scripture is
to be considered “obscure”.

They seem to fail to perceive that they refer to “perspicuity within their own CONtext”. It is the very plurality of CONtexts produced by answers 1) and 2) which does produce, IMHO, what could appear ( to observers within and outside Christianity) the “obscurity” of Scripture. Since we christians do offer this sad show, of so many doctrinal differences all claiming being “Bible-based” !

---

In a later post, you state SS ( or his sound understanding ) is not necessary for Salvation.

Well, in your proposed definition we have: "Scripture is the only
sound handbook of Salvation ", am I right ? ( it is complete and plain too). You deal with the hypothetical that SS is not in Scripture, stating SS is outside what is necessary for salvation.

If Scripture did not tell me it is the only handbook of salvation,
could that not jeopardize my salvation ?

After all, if I look for a handbook to drive a car, and among many
sources I find the only right one, but it does not show me what it is, how can I learn to drive ? That should be the plainest thing of all in the handbook:
This is the Handbook to drive this car".

The way of salvation not stating being the way of salvation makes it hard if not impossible.
So, even using the limitation *ratione materiae * ( what is necessary for salvation, faith, morals) you and others propose, does not save SS IMHO from being defeated in case it were unscriptural.

You may agree that unless you can show why in a protestant view SS is unnecessary, both for salvation, for faith ( I don’t get exactly this point maybe) and for morals, if SS as you define is not ( and “plainly” so) in Scripture, it is defeated.

In case it really is not necessary for or all that, what is SS necessary for ? Why was it historically proposed ?

I tried some answers in post 284.

 

[chosensinner]

I can’t make any sense of this assertion at all. It seems to me that it is clear that what was taught was equal, whether it was in writing or by word.

I understand that 2 Thes. 2:15 speaks of “traditions.”

However, one fact that should not be overlooked is that this passage reads, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, WHETHER by word OR by our epistle,” and it does not read, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, by word AND our epistle.”

This is significant.

Clearly this passage indicates that ONE OR THE OTHER is sufficient; and that the content (message) of the one, is essentially the same as the content of the other.

If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth differs from the content recorded in the apostle’s epistle, could you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

 

[chosensinner]

You state SS ( or his sound understanding ) is not necessary for Salvation.

Well, in your proposed definition we have: "Scripture is the only
sound handbook of Salvation ", am I right ? ( it is complete and plain too). You deal with the hypothetical that SS is not in Scripture, stating SS is outside what is necessary for salvation.

If Scripture did not tell me it is the only handbook of salvation,
could that not jeopardize my salvation ?

After all, if I look for a handbook to drive a car, and among many
sources I find the only right one, but it does not show me what it is, how can I learn to drive ? That should be the plainest thing of all in the handbook:
This is the Handbook to drive this car".

The way of salvation not stating being the way of salvation makes it hard if not impossible.
So, even using the limitation *ratione materiae * ( what is necessary for salvation, faith, morals) you and others propose, does not save SS IMHO from being defeated in case it were unscriptural.

I believe that you assumed way to much from what I wrote, and have read too far into my comments. You also mis-quote me.

Please review my reply on #362- for I am way past this point in my ongoing conversations. I cant sit here and repeat everything I already already wrote.

At this point I am on to demonstrating Sola Scriptura from the Scriptures themselves . . . see #382.

Thanks for the interest!

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you are under the impression that we reject all tradition; we do not.

No, we do not , hence, the title of the thread.

We find SS to be a man-made tradition that is extrabiblical.

Sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture alone is God-breathed and the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith.

Why do you suppose that Jesus founded a church, and gave them the authority to govern?

I don’t have to make a case ZERO tradition, because that is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura entails.

It is a good thing, since SS would be excluded.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Thankyou Pixie for your comments. I can’t agree with you more that you, as a Catholic, don’t agree with me, as a Protestant, with my interpretation of Scripture. I on the same note am a Protestant because I don’t agree with the unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church. That doesn’t make us enemies.

Likewise, I don’t agree with the unbiblical teachings of Protestantism, especially when all Protestants can’t agree on what the Scriptures actually teach.

May the Eternal Spirit guide us into all Truth as it is in our Savior.

Amen!

 

[pneuma07]

I believe that you assumed way to much from what I wrote, and have read too far into my comments. You also mis-quote me.

Please review my reply on #362- for I am way past this point in my ongoing conversations. I cant sit here and repeat everything I already already wrote.

At this point I am on to demonstrating Sola Scriptura from the Scriptures themselves . . . see #382.

Thanks for the interest!

Dear Chosensinner,

wow, what a quick anser ! This is often the problem i have with threads like this. Too speedy for me.

Anyway I had seen that you made it…plain that you’re going to show SS is scriptural.
And this is a line.

I hope:

1. you may agree, on the other line, that unless you can show why in a protestant view SS is unnecessary, both for salvation, for faith ( I don’t get exactly this point maybe) and for morals, if SS as you define it is not ( and “plainly” so) in Scripture, it is defeated.
2. you may consider the rest of my contribution. Particularly since you’re engaged in explaining you are for a “denominational” SS, against “pure perspicuity” or SOLO Scriptura.
   You’re confirming the distinctions I have outlined in posts 284 and 286 among the two main principles, or kinds of “perspicuities of Scripture”.
3. you see I do not want to build any strawman. On the contrary, I’d like to understand together the real nature of the doctrine we are examining.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I understand that 2 Thes. 2:15 speaks of “traditions.”

However, one fact that should not be overlooked is that this passage reads, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, WHETHER by word OR by our epistle,” and it does not read, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, by word AND our epistle.”

This is significant.

Clearly this passage indicates that ONE OR THE OTHER is sufficient; and that the content (message) of the one, is essentially the same as the content of the other.

If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth differs from the content recorded in the apostle’s epistle, could you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

Is this what you mean by “letting the scripture interpret itself”? Sounds more like, twist the words of scripture to meet my preconceived notion. It never says anything about one or the other being sufficient.

Here is what St. John Chrysostom says about this passage in his Homilies on 2 Thessalonians (4):

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

In other words, the passage means what it says:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle.

This is basic reading comprehension. Stand fast to the traditions - to the traditions whether they came by word of mouth or by epistle. It never says the same traditions were transmitted in both forms. Do you really think that Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians contain everything he taught to the Thessalonians? Everything about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, which together are about 5 pages long?

If this is your proof of sola scriptura from the scripture, it’s pretty weak. I don’t think one person in a hundred reading this passage would say it’s a defense or justification of sola scriptura. After you try to twist it around - your whole argument rests on the word “or” (like Bill Clinton - it depends on what is is) - you try to twist the meaning of this one verse to fit what your preconceived notion is. Is this what you mean by the Bible being your sole rule of faith and morals? That you can justify whatever you want to by twisting around individual passages to try to make them fit what you want to say?

Where does the Bible teach, plainly (as you have indicated that sola scriptura says it should) the doctrine of sola scriptura?

(Hint: It doesn’t.)

 

[PaperMoon]

This is simply a matter of perspective.
To those outside of the Catholic Church, and who have limited themsleves to only what they themselves personally are able to derive from Scripture (personal interpretation) it can certainly seem that way. Fortunately Christ did not leave us a book. He left us a living, breathing, dynamic Church protected and Guided By the Holy Spirit.
To those who begin with Christ in the Gospels, and look at how He established His Church, and Where He placed His authority, it is easy to see how the Church developed the way it did and how logical it’s structure is. Once one understands this it is easier to accept Her teachings, even if we don’t fully understand them.

Peace
James

That is a Fair Question - Let’s see if I can give you some helpful insight.

Actually This is both Yes and No…
Each person will get slightly different “interpretations” from Scripture depending upon their spiritual formation, maturity and/or what is going on in their life at the time. Thus the Holy Spirit is constantly working with and Guiding us.
The Teachings of the Church through the magisterium provides a basis against which to check our readings and understandings. Thus we have both the Bible (Written Scripture) and Tradition/Teachings, which are nothing more than the sum total of 2000 years of the Holy Spirit Working in and through the Church.

This is where historical evidence comes into play.
Every faith community can, if it so chooses, trace it’s particular history back to some “founder”. In the Case of the Protestant Churches, each track will go back to one of only a few “Reformers” in the 16th century - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli. At or around this point the track will rejoin with Rome. After all Luther was a Catholic Priest.
Beyond the 16th century there is only 2 possible Churches, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Go back to the year 1000 and we’re reduced to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This is tracable through, not just the lineage of the Popes, but through the writings and teachings of many learned and holy men. This lineage goes all the way back to apostolic times. It is a constant and irrefutable history which catholics embrace and while there have been times of danger and sin within the ranks of the Church, the teachings have remaind uncorrupted.
It is this history which provides the “firm foundation” upon which I accept the Catholic Church as Christ’s true Church.
Add to this the fact that the preserved writings of the Church over the millenia clearly demonstrate when and how the canon of the bible was arrived at and settled upon and we have both, the Tradition, Authoritatively Given by Christ and Tracable, and the Bible, Authoritively Given and taught by the Church.
It is upon this foundation that I can confidently build an understanding of Scripture, and of God’s will in my Life.

Not at all - Though I do like pickles - yumm yumm

It is a combination of 1) Provable History 2) Evidence found in Scripture 3) Faith
Christ authoritatively told us to take disagreements to The Church.
Protestants tell us that “The Church” is the “body of the faithful” regardless of denomination. Yet Jesus teaches differently.
Consider this passage

In the above, you will note that the second step involves bringing in other members of “The Body of Christ”. The THIRD step involves thelling it to THE CHURCH.
If The Church consists of this spiritual “Body of Believers” then step two above satisfies the reguirement to “take it to the church”. However since Christ teaches the third step (tell it to the Church) He must be talking about something real, tangable, and authoritative.
Also He did not say take it to scripture, but to the Church. Obviously it was His intent that The Living Church would have His authority over private interpretation.

History (Tradition), Bible (Scripture), Faith, and Authority.
I know What and Where that Church is.

Hope this helps

Peace
James

True, and if scripture was ALL that was needed as in sola scriptura, then Jesus the man would have written books of the Bible instead of establishing the church. Jesus the man did not write not 1 book of the Bible instead He founded the Church, which is based upon His teachings. Jesus could have came down as a man and just left us with several books written by Him, but instead He established the Church based on His teachings. It would have been much easier for Jesus to come down as a man and just write the whole Bible Himself and leave that for us but He knew that the written word was not enough because it could & would be minterpreted so He instead established the Church and an authority because scripture alone is not enough. That’s a message in and of itself that God used people that He inspired to explain His teachings that message in and of itself tells us that scripture itself is not enough.

 

[des_scahill]

And you now have a personal conviction on our teaching?

I have precisely the same conviction that I had before I asked the question that I did. That the Holy Spirit indwells all true christians personally.

So I’m not, generally speaking, “fazed” by the existence of 38,999 other ‘Protestant’ denominations. After all, who are we as Baptists to say that somewhere amongst the many individuals who comprise each of the other separate denominations are not those whom God ‘knows’ are His?

And can we as Baptists be so completely confident that our own congregations are all ‘wheat’, with no ‘tares’ at all?, that we can grandly declare a whole other denomination to be ‘tares’ .

Blessings

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4127234]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The way you put it here would be illogical and i agree but that’s not the way it was. The church has always had a written scripture.
What we see in the Catholic church is in part a drifting way from what the Scriptures teach on a number of different doctrines and practices.

guanophore
This is a somewhat disingenuous accusation, ja4. The Church had the OT that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. The Church determined that it was the Septuagint that was inspired, since that is the version they used.

i have never seen this. How do you know it was the Septuagint that was inspired and not the Hebrew text?

However, the total and full gospel was committed to the Apostles by Jesus before a word of the NT was ever written.

If this is the case then why did Jesus tell them in John that He had many more things to teach them but they could not hear them now? John 6:12

Secondly, are not the other doctrines taught in the Catholic church that also must be believed or you are condemned? The Marian doctrines come to mind.

The NT reflects Catholic Teaching entirely, which is why there is never a conflict between scripture and the Teachings. The both come from the same Source.

This is not true. There is much in the Catholic church that is not found in the NT.

What you are noticing about “drifting” is actually a drifting of ecclesial communities more and more away from Apostolic Teaching. This is based on the error of Sola Scriptura. Founding one’s faith on this error creates increasing drift from the Truth.

No doubt there is some errors in those churches just as there is error in your ecclesial communties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
.
Keep in mind that you and all catholics must interpret what the church says and not all catholics interpretations of what the church says are identical.

guanophore
This is absolutely true. This is one of the main reasons why authority is necessary. When people disagree, then Jesus said “take it to the Church”. The Church is the standard, and not the individual members of it.

This really does not help you. Even when the church interprets what it has said it still must be inteerpreted individually by its members and you still have different interpretations of the interpretation. There is no getting around this.

 

[justasking4]

Likewise, I don’t agree with the unbiblical teachings of Protestantism, especially when all Protestants can’t agree on what the Scriptures actually teach.

Amen!

Keep in mind that Catholics also suffer from the same thing as Protestants do in this regards. Ask 10 Catholics what a particular verse means and you will have different answers. Same goes for Catholic scholarship. Secondly the Catholic church has only offically interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures which means you can’t always agree what the Scriptures do teach on a number of passages.

 

[JRKH]

i have never seen this. How do you know it was the Septuagint that was inspired and not the Hebrew text?

We Know that the Septuagint is the full inspired text because it is the text that, at the end of the 4th century, the Fully United Christian Church (Read - Universal, Read - Catholic), acting in council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined to be so. These same council(s) set the NT at the 27 books we know today.
These same 73 books were reaffirmed by subsequent councils several times BEFORE the council of Trent officially closed the canon
If these councils were all wrong in selecting the Septuagint, then their selection of the 27 NT books are equally suspect and the entire bible canon collapses. Can you say - Back to the Drawing board?

[guanophore;4127234]
However, the total and full gospel was committed to the Apostles by Jesus before a word of the NT was ever written.

If this is the case then why did Jesus tell them in John that He had many more things to teach them but they could not hear them now? John 6:12

Secondly, are not the other doctrines taught in the Catholic church that also must be believed or you are condemned? The Marian doctrines come to mind.

I would say that, if anything, this only re-enforces Christ’s Later commitment of His Kingdom to a Living Church guided by the Holy spirit rather than a set of static books.
As to “Other Doctrines”. As True Catholics, we accept the Church’s teachings. If we have trouble understanding them, we can study or research them to better form our consciences. If we choose not to study on them we can simply accept them as is. What we must not do is “reject” the Church’s teachings, or teach others to reject them. This would be in direct dis-obedience to Christ’s commands in the NT.

This is not true. There is much in the Catholic church that is not found in the NT.

However, everything in the NT supports the catholic Church.
The Problem in all of this is that Protestants believe that Churches are a subset of the Bible. Where as Catholics Know that the Bible is a subset of Christ’s Church.

No doubt there is some errors in those churches just as there is error in your ecclesial communties.

And while there may be errors in “ecclesial communities”, the Church’s teachings remain fast and True.

This really does not help you. Even when the church interprets what it has said it still must be inteerpreted individually by its members and you still have different interpretations of the interpretation. There is no getting around this.

Regardless of how individuals interpret church teachings, it does not change the teachings themselves. Plus, when there are questions and/or disagreements, we are able to follow Christ’s command to “Take it to the Church”. Protestants cannot do this since their Churches cannot claim full authority over teaching. In other words, Protestant Churches do not have the Authority to Bind and Loose. After all Sola Scriptura means everyone can interpret for themselves and there is no getting around this either.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Keep in mind that Catholics also suffer from the same thing as Protestants do in this regards. Ask 10 Catholics what a particular verse means and you will have different answers. Same goes for Catholic scholarship. Secondly the Catholic church has only offically interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures which means you can’t always agree what the Scriptures do teach on a number of passages.

But here again you are looking at the Church as a subset of Scripture.
This is an incorrect view.
The Church teaches from the position of Christ’s own authority as recorded in the NT Scriptures AND passed down through Sacred Tradition in unbroken successions of Priests, Bishops, and Popes.
The Church doesn’t suffer from the need to completely define everything in the Bible since She precedes the Bible (as the canon we have today) and was given authority By Christ Himself.
Certainly we can read Scripture and study upon the meanings. However, in living our lives and developing our understandings of Scripture, we can take the bigger picture of what things mean in context. Plus we don’t have to be afraid of certain passages or ignore other ones or pick verses from here and there to assemble a theology.
The Bible, in particular the NT, developed in support of the Catholic Church. Not the other way around.

Peace
James

 

[Marian_Devotee]

Justasking4,

I don’t think there’s anything we could post that would make you see things differently. There are some regulars here who were once Protestant and converted to Catholicism; I wonder what they saw that you don’t (can’t? won’t?) see…

But I think every one of your assertions has been answered thoroughly, and I do hope that you will take their answers to heart. Have a great day!