Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Church_Militant]

And here again, as usual, we have a Catholic doing exegetical gymnastics in a vain attempt to deny what the Bible says.

I’m not denying anything of the sort Skip, nor is the Catholic Church, but we do refuse to go beyond what is written in doctrinal teachings.

In this case, as in several others, n-C theology is to assert that the passage cited supports something that it in fact does not.

That’s not gymnastics at all. It’s not even a somersault.

If “Bible only” Christians don’t want to have these discussions and be asked to justify these kinds of things then they simply need to insure that all that they teach is specifically supported by the Word of God and it shouldn’t happen. This is not some new teaching, this has been the belief of Catholic Christians for about 2,000 years.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

I’m not denying anything of the sort Skip, nor is the Catholic Church, but we do refuse to go beyond what is written in doctrinal teachings.

I’m not talking about going beyond what is written. I’m talking about looking at the whole context of the passage, which shows that the point of the passage is the prayer, not the location where the prayer takes place.

In this case, as in several others, n-C theology is to assert that the passage cited supports something that it in fact does not.

So then, you’re back to saying that the passage doesn’t support asking for prayer from the pastor and elders.

That’s not gymnastics at all. It’s not even a somersault.

If “Bible only” Christians don’t want to have these discussions and be asked to justify these kinds of things then they simply need to insure that all that they teach is specifically supported by the Word of God and it shouldn’t happen. This is not some new teaching, this has been the belief of Catholic Christians for about 2,000 years.

The problem is that Catholic “Christians” don’t care what the word of God says. They only care what their church wants them to believe what the word of God says.

 

[Church_Militant]

No, actually, you’re the one who said that, I didn’t.

(I see you edited your post after I began my response, and that’s cool…) Whatever, Skip.

I wish you’d make up your mind.

First it is, then it isn’t, then it is, then it isn’t…

Maybe you need to slow down and read what I post before getting in a hurry to answer or something. I never changed my mind or what I asserted, though I suppose you might wish that I did. Scroll back through the thread and check it. If you can find that place where I did so then I’ll accept your statement and clarify it again. Otherwise, you need to refute what I actually post…not what you wish I posted.

Really? The passage says that we’re to seek prayer from the pastor and elders. We offer people an opportunity to seek prayer from the pastor and elders. I don’t see any difference, except where the prayers are held, which you seem to think is the point of the passage.

What does the verse specifically say Skip? Here, I’ll post it again for everyone to be clear on. [14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; Why would he have to call for them if he was going to where they already are?

My only point all along is that the modern n-C practice in many faith communities is actually different than the scriptural norm. Basically, the scripture speaks of the church going to the sick person, not the sick person going to church.

Now, I am not saying that the other practice is wrong, nor that the elders and pastor shouldn’t pray for the sick, (and I have never even inferred such a thing…) but only that the modern n-C practice of some faith communities is at variance with this passage in James 5 that you cited.

The point is that this is an example, (and a pretty minor one) of a place where n-Cs professing Sola Scriptura demonstrate by their modern practice that they do not adhere to it.

No, that would make one of us who believes the Bible and one of us who believes what the Catholic church has told him the Bible says.

Look Skip, I have been as charitable to you as anyone possibly can be, and here again you engage in uncharitable polemics against me, and I frankly don’t appreciate it. If you can’t handle a rational and charitable apologetics discussion or debate then perhaps you should check your “witnessing” skills or something.

I have carefully studied to show myself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. I have objectively examined the claims of Protestantism and the Catholic Church against the Bible and I have found that the Catholic Church is the original, “full Gospel”, New Testament Christianity. I am committed to the truth regardless of where it leads me, and this is where it has led me by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I have no problems whatever with what the Bible says, but I have to disagree with the majority of the teachings of n-C faith communities. I am open to rational and charitable dialog with most anyone who comes along, but if you can’t maintain that then you have the problem.

So far, I have seen you :crying: and whine about supposed slights by Catholic posters here at CAF, but to be honest with you, in most cases, you have entered the discussions with some kind of chip on your shoulder and actually incited the reaction that you have got by your attitude.

Now, I don’t believe that one should return in kind, but I can see why others might be offended and react accordingly. But this last remark of your is both non-contributing and uncharitable.

Like I said, I have no problems with what the Bible says, nor does the Catholic Church, we simply disagree with your particular interpretation of some of it.

As for your comment…I can’t tell; because so far I have just shown that though you profess to believe what the Bible says, in practice, you actually show that you apparently believe it’s okay to add modern traditions that are different than what the New Testament specifically says.

My point is that this supports the premise of this thread, that Protestants don’t appear to really believe in the Sola Scriptura that they profess, or this would not be the case.

 

[Veritas41]

Protestants were really honest with themselves and with others, they do not really believe in scripture alone. Example(s):

1. Altar calls at the end of a message. Not found in scripture, this Tradition.
2. Asking Jesus into your heart bying praying a prayer. Not found in scripture, this is Tradition.
3. Protestants do not interpet scriptures with scripture(not always) but interpet them through life circumstances and through their experiences.
4. Protestants also execpt thier leaders “infallible” interpetation of scripture.

How do I know this, I was a protestant for 23 years before I became Catholic:thumbsup:

I woul also add their use of commentaries --I used to be Protestant, too

 

[Skip_Wiley]

I woul also add their use of commentaries --I used to be Protestant, too

Which commentary do Protestants believe is authoritative? In all of my classes, and in all of my years as a Christian, I’ve never known anyone who considered them anything more than just commentaries.

 

[JRKH]

See 2 Tim 3:15-17

1. Paul refers to scripture that Timothy would have been “Known since infancy”. Since none of the new testament had been written at the time of Timothy’s infancy Paul cannot be refering to anything but the OT.
2. Paul says that “All Scripture is useful”… Paul says it is useful, He does not say it is, by itself, sufficient.
3. In the same statement he says “ALL Scripture…” As a Baptist you are using a Bible that is short 7 books, plus portions of 2 other books.

So putting these things together, what you are attempting to do is:
Use a single passage from a letter,
Written even before much of the NT and any of the Gospels except possibly Mark,
To cover the entirety of Bible Scripture,
while at the same time,
Denying the validity of certain books contained in the original Canon of the Christian Bible.

Peace
James

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not talking about going beyond what is written. I’m talking about looking at the whole context of the passage, which shows that the point of the passage is the prayer, not the location where the prayer takes place.

I’ve already answered this…

So then, you’re back to saying that the passage doesn’t support asking for prayer from the pastor and elders.

Again…already answered…

The problem is that Catholic “Christians” don’t care what the word of God says. They only care what their church wants them to believe what the word of God says.

Hogwash! This is just another dose of your anti-Catholic polemics without any substantive evidence.

In fact, I would point out that virtually every one of my responses to you so far has proved just the opposite. Proving that faithful Catholics, like me, know and love the Word of God, as does the Catholic Church, and it apparently frustrates you that Catholics can respond to anti-Catholic rhetoric and propaganda with scriptural support for our teachings.

(I realize that many a-C preachers and teachers have said that we cannot. Obviously they are dead wrong. What else are they wrong about then?)

If you don’t like it then I’m afraid I can’t help that. I can kinda understand how that feels. Read my testimony.

 

[Veritas41]

Which commentary do Protestants believe is authoritative? In all of my classes, and in all of my years as a Christian, I’ve never known anyone who considered them anything more than just commentaries.

Whatever is their personal preference. In the Reformed churches I attended, Matthew Henry’s commentaries were highly regarded. The Reformers taught that everything we need to know is in Scripture and they taught the perpiscuity of Scripture (that everything can be clearly understood), so why the need for commentaries? Shouldn’t the Holy Spirit lead each believer to a proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture without the use of commentaries? It’s a case of believing something in principle but not being able to act on it in practice.

 

[Church_Militant]

Which commentary do Protestants believe is authoritative? In all of my classes, and in all of my years as a Christian, I’ve never known anyone who considered them anything more than just commentaries.

Yet if the scriptures were as perspicacious as many Sola Scriptura n-Cs assert they are, then they wouldn’t be necessary at all now would they? :bible1:

Why would one even need to take classes if that was true?

 

[Skip_Wiley]

I never changed my mind or what I asserted, though I suppose you might wish that I did. Scroll back through the thread and check it. If you can find that place where I did so then I’ll accept your statement and clarify it again.

Half of the time, you have asserted that Christian act of offering somebody an opportunity to pray with the pastor and elders is not Biblical.

What does the verse specifically say Skip? Here, I’ll post it again for everyone to be clear on. [14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; Why would he have to call for them if he was going to where they already are?

Again, I know how much Catholics hate context but please force yourself to read the entire passage. It is clear from the context that the point is the prayer, not the location where the prayer takes place.

My only point all along is that the modern n-C practice in many faith communities is actually different than the scriptural norm.

How so?

Basically, the scripture speaks of the church going to the sick person, not the sick person going to church.

Do you know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive?

Now, I am not saying that the other practice is wrong, nor that the elders and pastor shouldn’t pray for the sick, (and I have never even inferred such a thing…) but only that the modern n-C practice of some faith communities is at variance with this passage in James 5 that you cited.

I disagree. The passage in James 5 describes people being given an opportunity to ask for prayer from the pastor and elders. That’s exactly what an altar call is.

The point is that this is an example, (and a pretty minor one) of a place where n-Cs professing Sola Scriptura demonstrate by their modern practice that they do not adhere to it.

How so?

I have objectively examined the claims of Protestantism and the Catholic Church against the Bible and I have found that the Catholic Church is the original, “full Gospel”, New Testament Christianity.

I have objectively examined the claims of Catholicism and the Catholic church against the Bible and I have found that the Catholic church does not have the Gospel and is not a Christian organization.

I am committed to the truth regardless of where it leads me,

As long as it agrees with what your church tells you to believe.

I have no problems whatever with what the Bible says, but I have to disagree with the majority of the teachings of n-C faith communities. I am open to rational and charitable dialog with most anyone who comes along, but if you can’t maintain that then you have the problem.

Like I said, I have no problems with what the Bible says, nor does the Catholic Church, we simply disagree with your particular interpretation

of some of it.

And you’re able to do this even though I didn’t offer an interpretation.

One of the very first threads I participated in here, you made sure to tell me that the Bible passage I posted was wrong, even though I never posted that passage.

Good to see you’re still up to your old tricks.

As for your comment…I can’t tell; because so far I have just shown that though you profess

to believe what the Bible says, in practice, you actually show that you apparently believe it’s okay to add modern traditions that are different than what the New Testament specifically says.

Actually, you didn’t show anything. I’m still waiting for you to explain why the practice of asking the pastors and elders to pray for you is Unbiblical.

My point is that this supports the premise of this thread, that Protestants don’t appear to really believe in the Sola Scriptura that they profess, or this would not be the case.

Maybe some don’t. But I guess it’s better for them not to understand sola scriptura than for Catholics like you who don’t believe God’s word.

Yet if the scriptures were as perspicacious as many Sola Scriptura n-Cs assert they are, then they wouldn’t be necessary at all now would they?

Why would one even need to take classes if that was true?

That we study the Bible does not mean that commentaries are authoritative.

I notice you completely ignored my question.

Veritas41:

Whatever is their personal preference.

Like what? What church or church body has ever declared a commentary to be authoritative?

In the Reformed churches I attended, Matthew Henry’s commentaries were highly regarded.

Please name these churches so that I can email their pastors and ask if they truly believe that Matthew Henry’s commentaries are authoritative.

The Reformers taught that everything we need to know is in Scripture and they taught the perpiscuity of Scripture (that everything can be clearly understood), so why the need for commentaries?

The Bible is the final authority on all matters of doctrine and practice. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t study the Bible to know what it says.

Shouldn’t the Holy Spirit lead each believer to a proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture without the use of commentaries?

Then why does the Bible say that God gave us teachers?

 

[Skip_Wiley]

I’ve already answered this… Again…already answered…Hogwash! This is just another dose of your anti-Catholic polemics without any substantive evidence.

In fact, I would point out that virtually every one of my responses to you so far has proved just the opposite. Proving that faithful Catholics, like me, know and love the Word of God, as does the Catholic Church, and it apparently frustrates you that Catholics can respond to anti-Catholic rhetoric and propaganda with scriptural support for our teachings.

(I realize that many a-C preachers and teachers have said that we cannot. Obviously they are dead wrong. What else are they wrong about then?)

If you don’t like it then I’m afraid I can’t help that. I can kinda understand how that feels. Read my testimony.

Hey, if you want to attack me and pretend like you’ve been sincere (or at least, consistent), that’s cool.

But I really don’t have time to play these games with you.

The bottom line is that James describes there being a time to ask for prayer from the pastor and elders and that’s what we do.

Maybe if you can show how that’s unbiblical, I’ll take you off my ignore list. But, until then, I’m not going to waste my time with you.

Goodbye.

 

[estesbob]

OK. If you want to make the location of the prayer the point of the passage, then that’s between you and God.

Really? Where does the scripture “specify” that we’re not to ask the pastor or elders for prayer?

If believing the Bible is weird, then I guess I’m weird.

There is nothing weird about believing in the Bible. Rejecting 2000 years of teachings and traditions with your personal interpretation of the Bible it is what is weird.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

There is nothing weird about believing in the Bible. Rejecting 2000 years of teachings and traditions with your personal interpretation of the Bible it is what is weird.

I agree. Why do you guys do that?

 

[Church_Militant]

Half of the time, you have asserted that Christian act of offering somebody an opportunity to pray with the pastor and elders is not Biblical.

Sure Skip, sure.

If that’s true then there should be a post on this thread where i say that. Please show me where that is.

What does the verse specifically say Skip? Here, I’ll post it again for everyone to be clear on. [14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church

, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; Why would he have to call for them if he was going to where they already are?

Again, I know how much Catholics hate context but please force yourself to read the entire passage. It is clear from the context that the point is the prayer, not the location where the prayer takes place.

I never said it wasn’t. I simply said…and reaffirm here that what you are teaching and practicing is a modern tradition of man that actually is different than what the passage that you yourself cited specifically says.

How so?

I’ve already covered this. back up a post or two of mine and you’ll find it.

Do you know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive?

Sure I do, but that’s not relevant to this particular discussion. This is merely a case where someone (you) take a descriptive verse and have tried to allege that I have asserted it to be prescriptive when I have not. I have merely pointed out that the scripture that you chose to cite does not specifically say anything about the sick person going to church to get prayer for his healing, yet that is the primary practice of a great many n-C faith communities.

I disagree. The passage in James 5 describes people being given an opportunity to ask for prayer from the pastor and elders. That’s exactly what an altar call is.

If you say so…

How so?

again…already dealt with this…

I have objectively examined the claims of Catholicism and the Catholic church against the Bible and I have found that the Catholic church does not have the Gospel and is not a Christian organization.

Sure you have… If that were true then you wouldn’t be spouting so much a-C rhetoric and propaganda and would actually discuss issues. Something that you have pretty much failed to do.

By all means open a new thread and prove your statement by showing me real evidence of your allegation.

But that has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

As long as it agrees with what your church tells you to believe.

You know, you keep saying that but it’s just a polemic without any substance.

If the Catholic Church was as wrong as you and most of these a-C preachers allege then it should be ridiculously easy to prove, but without exception they (and you) have failed to deliver. In the 500 years since the so-called Reformation, they have not made good their case.

And you’re able to do this even though I didn’t offer an interpretation.

Anyone on this thread seen an interpretation offered by Skip?

One of the very first threads I participated in here, you made sure to tell me that the Bible passage I posted was wrong, even though I never posted that passage.
Good to see you’re still up to your old tricks.

Show me.

As usual, you make allegations without any proof.

Actually, you didn’t show anything. I’m still waiting for you to explain why the practice of asking the pastors and elders to pray for you is Unbiblical.

Why would I bother with something that I have never expressed. I’m sure you wish I’d go for that, but I think everyone reading this thread, Catholic and non-Catholic alike has seen that this is not the case.

Maybe some don’t. But I guess it’s better for them not to understand sola scriptura than for Catholics like you who don’t believe God’s word.

Another polemic without the least substance. Where did I ever even infer such a thing?

Anyone on here seen a post of mine that infers this?

That we study the Bible does not mean that commentaries are authoritative.

Never asserted that they were. However, if scripture was perspicacious then they wouldn’t be needed at all and there would be no disagreement at all.

I notice you completely ignored my question.

Doubtful… but restate if you feel it’s important.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey, if you want to attack me and pretend like you’ve been sincere (or at least, consistent), that’s cool.

Anyone see an attack here?

Try not to feed that martyr complex Skip…

But I really don’t have time to play these games with you.

Oh, I’m not playing.

But you apparently lack apologetics skills enough to make your case without polemics. And you say you went to classes for all this?

The bottom line is that James describes there being a time to ask for prayer from the pastor and elders and that’s what we do.

This was never the point of the discussion, nor was it ever something that I asserted was either unbiblical or wrong.:juggle:

Maybe if you can show how that’s unbiblical, I’ll take you off my ignore list. But, until then, I’m not going to waste my time with you.

Goodbye.

Again, I won’t defend something that I did not assert, no matter how much you wish I would.

By all means. It won’t save you. When you post things that are wrong I’ll be there and refute it and all that ignore list will do is not allow you to see my posts…but everyone else will and when they quote one, you’ll be stuck with seeing it then.

It doesn’t matter to me. If you won’t listen, then the Holy Spirit will send others…who will.

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Ten (10) off topic posts have been pruned from this thread.

If you wish to discuss something other than Sola Scriptura, then (as you all know) the ***Forum Rules require a new thread for it.

Stay on topic and maintain the highest levels of charity.
*** MF***

 

[Rulkiewicz]

When Paul wrote to the Galatians and penned:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

I can’t help but to ask myself: If Paul came down in to our churches and noticed what the majority of Christianity teaches, how sickened would he be to notice that there has been so much more added and deleted from his** original **gospel message since then.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Of course they don’t. The have to preach they do, but condemn anyone who has been “led by the Spirit” to the Catholic interpretations.

 

[JRKH]

When Paul wrote to the Galatians and penned:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

I can’t help but to ask myself: If Paul came down in to our churches and noticed what the majority of Christianity teaches, how sickened would he be to notice that there has been so much more added and deleted from ***his original gospel ***message since then.

His Gospel Message?
I thought that Paul preached Christ’s Gospel message.
I believe that Paul would be most annoyed to hear someone call the Gospel his.

I also believe that Paul taught at a time when there were little or no recorded gospels as we know them today.
Paul taught the Gospel message based on a) Oral Tradition, and b) The guidance of the Holy Spirit. Naturally neither of these things relied on the same set of Scriptures that we know today, since much of the NT hadn’t been written.

That which the Catholic Church teaches, is the cumulative sum of the workings of the Holy Spirit working within Christ’s Church. Therefore, I believe, if any of the Apostles were to “walk into” a catholic church they would not be surprised at all.

Peace
James

 

[Mea_Culpa]

See 2 Tim 3:15-17

2 Tim 3:15-17:
and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Of course, conveniently ignoring the beginning of the sentence in 2 Tim 3:14: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, "

In other words, the Scriptures are not all that is required or necessary - there is also what you have learned and from whom you have learned it. Catholics call this “what you have learned” Sacred Tradition, and “from whom you have learned it” the Magisterium of the Church.

Where in there does it talk about sola scriptura? Where does it say that ONLY the Bible is necessary? It says Scripture is profitable - no Catholic would argue with that. It doesn’t say that the Bible is all that is needed.

This one Bible verse, taken out of context, is all the Scriptural justification you have for sola scriptura?

Since *sola scriptura *is un-Scriptural, it contradicts itself. If you can only believe what’s in the Bible, but *sola scriptura *isn’t in the Bible, then you shouldn’t believe in sola scriptura.