Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[chosensinner]

Chosensinner,
I belive, and correct me if I am wrong, Pauls writings existed well before any of the Evangeists, including Luke…not that Paul couldn’t have quoted Luke, but it is my understanding that if anyone was reading anyone else’s work, it would be vice-versa.

Of course there are divisions among Catholics, but when a bunch of women go off ordaining themselves, they then become outside the Church, are excommunicated and they join the ranks of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.

To where should a prespective Christian go? A church that started in 1965 by Chuck or by a Church started by Jesus Christ in 33AD?

I still need some help in figuring out who has more credibility.

I enjoy reading your responses.

God bless,

DannyC

A perspective Christian should attend a church where the Bible is faithfully taught and the way of salvation is laid before seeking men and women and children every Sunday in a very clear and comprehensible manner.

A church where there are no statues and idol worship.

A church where those who attend bring their Bibles, and actually care about what is written it them; like Exodus 20:4-6.

The Church that has the most credibility is the Church that Jesus Christ founded in 33AD- which is the Body of Christ. This Church is made up of Jews and Gentiles out of every nation, tribe, kindred, and tongue; who are Spirit filled believers relying on Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

They should not go to a Church where there is some supposed “priest-hood” pretending to offer up PROPITIATORY SACRIFICES DAILY to God.

Jesus Christ offered one sacrifice for all times- and has by that one sacrifice- perfected forever them that are sanctified.

There is no Priesthood mentioned anywhere in the New Testament except where it teaches that ALL BELIEVERS are now made priests unto God in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices of thanks and praises.

*If they would just read the book of Hebrews they would see clearly that the old types and shadows have passed away and are no longer existent. They have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ our Great High Priest and Sacrifice.

If they are looking for a good Church- they should find one that preaches on the Sovereign Grace of God in the salvation of fallen, depraved, and hell-bound sinners. One that preaches the truth about salvation- that it is a GIFT of God- bestowed upon those for whom Christ died, by the Power of the Holy Spirit- through the preaching of the Gospel- manifested in faith and in good works.

This is the gospel of the Apostle Paul- and therefore this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If the Church they attend does not meet these standards- then they should find a new church.

 

[larry_m]

As is usually the case this thread has gotten off the main question. There are some great thoughts being presented but off the subject. I have been guilty of same. I have had a good discussion with Meaculpa, unfortunately it got off what this thread is about, Protestants do not really believe in SS. Our discussion got on a side issue that there is no such thing, Scripturally, as SS. Protestants for centuries have stuck to their guns that they do. Once again, in the Council of Trent, as I showed before, their argument fell apart on them keeping Sunday as the biblical Sabbath which has been proven by the Catholic Church to be error. It is the child of the Papacy. My Catholic friends, above all, should agree since it is in numerous of their writings, including the catechism. The Protestant world, in part, has addressed this issue, that is why there are, Seventh Day Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh Day Methodists, Seventh Day Pentecostals, etc… I have heard every argument concerning the so called biblical proof of the Sabbath change. They have all been in vain. That is for another thread. My Protestant friends need to take a closer look at the Council of Trent decision & see where they err. May we all come together in the Spirit of our Savior. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

 

[chosensinner]

I tell you what. How about YOU define it for us then PROVE your theory using explicit verses from the Bible.

Forget about what we think. You already know how we think about our own faith regarding the Church, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

C’mon, lets hear how you define ss and how you lead your life according to it. We’re all ears.

That definition you gave is what you believe yes?

In the Historical Protestant teaching, along with the teachings of many early Church Fathers- the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” can be defined thus:

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.

According to the Catholic Church- do you guys believe that ALL that is necessary for salvation is revealed in Holy Scripture? Or do you believe that MUCH of what is necessary for salvation is revealed in Holy Scripture, and MUCH of what is necessary is revealed in Holy Tradition?

 

[JRKH]

I would add this to the definition:
Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. This is why they are inspired-inerrant.

So the question comes back around to:
How do we know that these specific texts, out of the hundreds written between 33AD and 350 AD are the only true and exclusive “God Breathed” Texts?
If the Bible contains ALL of the “God Breathed” inspired Sacred Scripture, Why does the Protestant Bible have fewer books?
If God made the correct decision in 400 AD on the Bible canon, how can the Protestants rationally defend a shortened canon today?

I just don’t see how one gets around this.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

A perspective Christian should attend a church where the Bible is faithfully taught and the way of salvation is laid before seeking men and women and children every Sunday in a very clear and comprehensible manner.

The most beautiful and Biblical Worship can be found in your local Catholic Church.

A church where there are no statues and idol worship.

Then you can rest easy in The Catholic Church which absolutely refuses to worship any but God Himself.
Don’t worry about statues, I’ve seen many Protestant churches with manger scenes at Christmas so this seem moot to me.

A church where those who attend bring their Bibles, and actually care about what is written it them; like Exodus 20:4-6.

Yes - Do bring your Bible, though you don’t have to. Each Sunday service will involve three Bible readings, a Homily and a Liturgy made up of the most beautiful prayers and quotes from the Bible.

The Church that has the most credibility is the Church that Jesus Christ founded in 33AD- which is the Body of Christ. This Church is made up of Jews and Gentiles out of every nation, tribe, kindred, and tongue; who are Spirit filled believers relying on Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT - Accept only the original One, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. Over 1 billion Strong, and faithful to the full deposit of faith as handed down from Christ and Protected by The Holy Spirit.

They should not go to a Church where there is some supposed “priest-hood” pretending to offer up PROPITIATORY SACRIFICES DAILY to God.

Absolutely correct. Make sure that the Church is in full communion with Rome so that the priesthood is valid and the offering of the Mass is in full accordance with the ordinances of the Lord.

Jesus Christ offered one sacrifice for all times- and has by that one sacrifice- perfected forever them that are sanctified.

And we are saved and santified by our Baptism and obediance to God’s Holt Church which He Himslef founded.

There is no Priesthood mentioned anywhere in the New Testament except where it teaches that ALL BELIEVERS are now made priests unto God in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices of thanks and praises.

Of course there is no “Bible” mentioned in the NT either.

*If they would just read the book of Hebrews they would see clearly that the old types and shadows have passed away and are no longer existent. They have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ our Great High Priest and Sacrifice.

Yep, that’s the Church.

If they are looking for a good Church- they should find one that preaches on the Sovereign Grace of God in the salvation of fallen, depraved, and hell-bound sinners. One that preaches the truth about salvation- that it is a GIFT of God- bestowed upon those for whom Christ died, by the Power of the Holy Spirit- through the preaching of the Gospel- manifested in faith and in good works.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. That’s why I’m Catholic:thumbsup:

This is the gospel of the Apostle Paul- and therefore this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If the Church they attend does not meet these standards- then they should find a new church.

You can save yourself a lot of hunting. The Catholic Church is The Church Chriat founded which is historically provable.
Take an RCIA course. If you don’t agree, then just drop out.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Chosensinner,
I belive, and correct me if I am wrong, Pauls writings existed well before any of the Evangeists, including Luke…not that Paul couldn’t have quoted Luke, but it is my understanding that if anyone was reading anyone else’s work, it would be vice-versa.

Of course there are divisions among Catholics, but when a bunch of women go off ordaining themselves, they then become outside the Church, are excommunicated and they join the ranks of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.

To where should a prespective Christian go? A church that started in 1965 by Chuck or by a Church started by Jesus Christ in 33AD?

I still need some help in figuring out who has more credibility.

I enjoy reading your responses.

God bless,

DannyC

I said it my response to chosensinner, but I will say it again directly to you. If you really want to learn the facts about the Catholic Church, sign up for a RCIA course at a nearby parish. You can raise your questions and get good direction. It doesn’t obligate you in any way and if you find the Church isn’t for you then you just walk away.
Simple as can be.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In the Historical Protestant teaching, along with the teachings of many early Church Fathers- the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” can be defined thus:

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.

According to the Catholic Church- do you guys believe that ALL that is necessary for salvation is revealed in Holy Scripture? Or do you believe that MUCH of what is necessary for salvation is revealed in Holy Scripture, and MUCH of what is necessary is revealed in Holy Tradition?

To me this is the biggie, just how does one discern that they are “enabled by the Holy Spirit”.
What you say is fine in theory, but… Without some authority, outside of individual interpretation, how does one discern the correctness of their reading.

Someone brought up earlier certain OT and NT items about hating mothers and fathers for Jesus sake.
How about Jesus talking about cutting off the hand or gouging out the eye if it causes you to sin. If a Christian minister began teaching that this as correct and people began maiming themselves would you support that as a “Valid” interpretation?
Yet how can you tell this preacher that he is wrong? What makes his interpretation less correct? How do you KNOW he is NOT Spirit Lead?

Peace
James

 

[Mea_Culpa]

In the Historical Protestant teaching, along with the teachings of many early Church Fathers- the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” can be defined thus:

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.

**Hey that’s a really great definition of sola scriptura. Where exactly is that taught in Holy Scripture?

If “everything necessary for salvation is made plain in Scripture” as you say, then this doctrine of sola scriptura must be in there, right? And it must be taught plainly, so that an individual can understand it.

That’s great! Just point me to the chapter and verse where sola scriptura is taught plainly and clearly.

Thanks!**

 

[PaperMoon]

To me this is the biggie, just how does one discern that they are “enabled by the Holy Spirit”.
What you say is fine in theory, but… Without some authority, outside of individual interpretation, how does one discern the correctness of their reading.

Someone brought up earlier certain OT and NT items about hating mothers and fathers for Jesus sake.
How about Jesus talking about cutting off the hand or gouging out the eye if it causes you to sin. If a Christian minister began teaching that this as correct and people began maiming themselves would you support that as a “Valid” interpretation?
Yet how can you tell this preacher that he is wrong? What makes his interpretation less correct? How do you KNOW he is NOT Spirit Lead?

Peace
James

Good point, and that’s exactly the problem with not being under any kind of authority. That’s how they ended up with so many different denominations and confusion. Every time somone thought they were lead by God they started a new church or sect and each sect contradicted each other yet they all claimed to be lead by God.

 

[chosensinner]

To me this is the biggie, just how does one discern that they are “enabled by the Holy Spirit”.
What you say is fine in theory, but… Without some authority, outside of individual interpretation, how does one discern the correctness of their reading.

Peace
James

Good question! That is exactly what every Protestant would like to know about the trustworthyness of the Roman Catholic teaching magisterium. How does one discern the correctness of it’s teachings?

Without SOME authority outside of individual interpretation- we must be at a loss right? Well how can we be sure about exactly what that authority is? You say the Roman Magisterium, but how did you come to that conclusion? Because they say so? AND if you say you get it from Scripture- this is circular reasoning; for you just implied that we could not discern the correctness of any interpretation of Scripture without an outside source- right?

Seems to me like you are in a pickle.

How does one come to the conclusion (without private interpretation) that Rome is the final authority?

 

[Des]

According to the Catholic Church- do you guys believe that ALL that is necessary for salvation is revealed in Holy Scripture? Or do you believe that MUCH of what is necessary for salvation is revealed in Holy Scripture, and MUCH of what is necessary is revealed in Holy Tradition?

Implicit/Explicit in Scripture but very Explicit in Tradition that has been passed on till now.

I also believe Sacred Scripture can make a man of God complete just like the Bible says.

2 Timothy 3:16,17 —
*“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.” *

It completes the man of God (Minister) who has already been taught and trained within the Church and not some man who just walks in, suddenly takes the Bible in his hands and starts reading away.

 

[guanophore]

I would add this to the definition:
Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. This is why they are inspired-inerrant.

It seems to me that this would present problems for the SS, since the Church is also God-breathed, and given the authority by Christ to govern.

It would be great if there was some kind of “infallible interpreter” that has infallibly interpreted all the Scriptures. Sadly there is not. Not even the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has come even close to doing so.

No, I don’t think that would be “great”. Such an approach would only reinforce the wrong way that the Scriptures are being currently used by SS. The purpose of the Magesterium is to interpret the Teaching of Jesus Christ for the present generation. This is done with great effectiveness. The scriptural principles can then be applied to situations that did not exist at the time they were written.

No. The guidance that Jesus promised does not mean the church would be incapable of teaching error or be protected from false teachers. In fact it warns the false teachers will come into the church itself and deceive many. History has proven this to be the case.

Indeed, this is exactly what He meant. To teach error is to pass through the gates of hell. However, I agree that false teachers such as yourself do come into the church. Many have been deceived. Sola Scriptura is such a deception. OSAS is another.

Not necessarily so. We would have to know specially what these council said before we can determine if they did always teach the truth.

Well, I hope you take the time to study the councils.

 

[guanophore]

Good question! That is exactly what every Protestant would like to know about the trustworthyness of the Roman Catholic teaching magisterium. How does one discern the correctness of it’s teachings?

Without SOME authority outside of individual interpretation- we must be at a loss right? Well how can we be sure about exactly what that authority is? You say the Roman Magisterium, but how did you come to that conclusion? Because they say so? AND if you say you get it from Scripture- this is circular reasoning; for you just implied that we could not discern the correctness of any interpretation of Scripture without an outside source- right?

Seems to me like you are in a pickle.

How does one come to the conclusion (without private interpretation) that Rome is the final authority?

No. No pickle. The Church receieves her authority from Christ Himself. It was she who produced the NT, and canonized them. Scripture receives authority from the Church. No circular reasoning there!

 

[chosensinner]

If “everything necessary for salvation is made plain in Scripture” as you say, then this doctrine of sola scriptura must be in there, right? And it must be taught plainly, so that an individual can understand it.

Did I miss something?

I never asserted that a precise understanding of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura was essential for salvation- did I? So where did you get that idea? :ehh:

NOW- Which one of my assertions do you deny?

Do you deny that Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Church?

Do you deny that Scripture alone is God breathed, and therefore the only infallible rule of faith?

Do you deny that all that is necessary for salvation is contained and clearly revealed in Holy Scripture?

Please tell me which of these is wrong- and then prove it to me.

 

[chosensinner]

No. No pickle. The Church receieves her authority from Christ Himself.

Says who? The Roman Catholic Church? And how do you know that she is telling the truth?

 

[Des]

Keep in mind that the Scriptures were already in written form before the printing press as you know. What the printing made possible was for the “common” man to have his own copy of the them. This should not be taken lightly since this was not possible for centuries for the common man to have his own copy of the Scriptures. What a matchless gift this is and yet so many Christians don’t recognize the great gift they have.

So basically, you believe that after Christ commanded His Apostles to go unto the world to preach and teach, the Holy Spirit then got some but not all of His Apostles to start to write letters and epistles so that after they die, His implicit/explicit Written Word could start to travel at snail speed only to be passed to teeny little groups of Christians who were oh so fortunate to have Scripture within their grasp. And then of course 15 hundred years later once they actually start to duplicate the Bible, they can rejoice and feel free to start the debating and bickering over things like Sunday or the Sabbath, Baptism saves or not, once saved always saved, divorce, faith and good works or faith alone etc., never being allowed to dogmatically define to the rest of the Christians these crucial doctrines of the faith that Jesus indeed wanted us to know.
Oh and these free Biblical based Christians would practically keep up this splintering over the Gospel till the end of the world. But that’s ok since they all believed they were being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations.

Yeah that makes alot of sense.

It’s precisely this kind of illogical reasoning that ignites the conversion process of protestants by getting them to actually think about their erroneous position and finally come back home to the Church where they belong.

 

[Des]

And don’t get me wrong about Protestants either. There are indeed alot of good faithful ones out there who really are trying to please God and do His will. Only God knows who they are though.

And Catholics aren’t perfect by any means. I witness many who are terrible in their faith going against Church teachings like abortions are a woman’s right. Or homosexual relations being fine as long as they love each other.

 

[des_scahill]

This is also very near to the spirit of the true Catholic. The only difference is that we have the Blessing of Christ’s Holy Church with Her power to Bind and Loose, to aid us in our journey. Of course even with that, we are taught in the Cathechism that we must abide by our Conscience.
Here is a link to the appropriate section of the Catechism. It makes very interesting reading. You can see from this how much importance the Church places upon the individual’s relationship with God, and God’s desire to speak to and guide His Children.

Thanks for the helpful references James.

I notice that a number of Catholics mention the importance of “Conscience” as a ‘guide’ to God’s children in their posts and I would certainly share that view.

What I am wondering though is: What is Catholic doctrine regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an individual believer?.

The verses I’m referring to are: (from the KJV)

2 Corinthians 1:21-23 (King James Version)

21Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed** us**, is God;

22Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in **our **hearts.

23Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.

Galatians 4:]
4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Ephesians 1:13-15

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Note: word ‘seal’ has connotations of being ‘stamped’ with a seal of ownership, (similar to the practice of a wax seal stamped with the insignia of the owner)

Note the word ‘earnest’ is an old fashioned word for ‘deposit’ which was still in use in some legal documents until relatively recently - its like saying : I’m planning to complete this transaction in the future, and here is a deposit to show you that I’m sincere about doing that.

My reason for asking is that (to date) I don’t see any Catholics attributing the** individual** believer with the existance at all of personal guidance from the Holy Spirit in all sorts of matters, including help in understanding scripture.

Thanks

 

[des_scahill]

T

My reason for asking is that (to date) I don’t see any Catholics attributing the** individual** believer with the existance at all of personal guidance from the Holy Spirit in all sorts of matters, including help in understanding scripture.

Thanks

I’ll reword this in case there is any ambiguity in what I’m asking:

My reason for asking is that (to date) I don’t see any Catholics attributing the** individual** man-in-the-pew lay believer as having access to personal guidance from the personally indwelling Holy Spirit, on all sorts of matters, including personal help in personally understanding sacred texts as he reads them eg. perhaps at home during a private study time. This would apply to Catholics themselves of course, and lets take for granted that any insights gained from such guidance, (if you believe such personal direct guidance exists in the first place) would not contradict the teachings of the sacred texts.

 

[PaperMoon]

Good question! That is exactly what every Protestant would like to know about the trustworthyness of the Roman Catholic teaching magisterium. How does one discern the correctness of it’s teachings?

Without SOME authority outside of individual interpretation- we must be at a loss right? Well how can we be sure about exactly what that authority is? You say the Roman Magisterium, but how did you come to that conclusion? Because they say so? AND if you say you get it from Scripture- this is circular reasoning; for you just implied that we could not discern the correctness of any interpretation of Scripture without an outside source- right?

Seems to me like you are in a pickle.

How does one come to the conclusion (without private interpretation) that Rome is the final authority?

The difference is that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus the protestant denominations were all started by men.