Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[PaperMoon]

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!

Exactly!! The Bible was put together by the Catholic church so if the Catholic church is wrong, then the Bible would be wrong, & then Jesus would be wrong because He founded the Catholic church. The protestants started out as 1 disobedient man Martin Luther who went out on his own to start his own church. From there it just grew to the many different denominations you see today. Protestant roots go back to a rebellious man, Catholic roots go back to Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[JRKH]

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)

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

I don’t have a great deal of time this AM so I’ll be brief.
Everycatholic believes in the “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit", though when I searched the catachism I did not find that exact term.
We recieve the Holy Spirit at Baptism and continue to be guided by Him so long as we are Faithful to God. We Reaffirm our Baptismal promises at Holy communion and at Confirmation.
We may use different terms and so forth, but we definitely believe that the Holy Spirit Dwells in and Guides Each faithful catholic.
I will also address one other term popular in the Evangelical Protestant world -Personal relationship with Christ. We recieve Christ fully and substantially each time we take communion. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We do this because we Love Him and wish to be near Him and to emulate Him.
How much more personal can you get than that?

Peace
James

 

[des_scahill]

I don’t have a great deal of time this AM so I’ll be brief.

James

Thanks for that.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

Confirmation This takes you to the origional scanned copy you can go to a better and easier to read copy. I sent you to the origional so you could see that this is not a new or imagined teaching. The last section on the CA site gives the Protistant view of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).

You will find all the information that need here. Since every Catholic that has completed good religious education knows this some of us just assumed you knew this already.

 

[des_scahill]

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.

As one Des to another, thanks for that. Just a minor quibble - ( I do have a sense of humour even though I’m a Baptist - who as a group are probably more minimalist then Luther) - I’d reword your last sentence. Leave out the ‘only’ and write it as.:

God knows who they are though, they’'re spread out amongst 38,999 denominations.

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.

Don’t beat yourself up, we’ve got all those issues too.
Hmmm… hope you and I haven’t triggered a new thread titled “Whose list of sins is the longest and claims that proves God must like them more than everybody else because he has shown them more grace”:banghead:

By the way, I’ve got an ‘authority’ for my 38,999 Protestant denominations.Its here at line 43 on this page:: gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php

They seem a seriously academic **protestant **research group from a quick look at the website…

Lets share the burden a bit. I’ll go away and worry about whether they’ve accidentally left a “1” off the front of the number, and you can worry about whether they left off a trailing zero. :hypno:

Blessings and peace

.

 

[des_scahill]

Confirmation This takes you to the origional scanned copy you can go to a better and easier to read copy. I sent you to the origional so you could see that this is not a new or imagined teaching. The last section on the CA site gives the Protistant view of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).

You will find all the information that need here. Since every Catholic that has completed good religious education knows this some of us just assumed you knew this already.

Thanks for the source Kathleen,

I just wanted to make sure that I understood the official catholic teaching on this particular point so I could see how its related (if at all) by catholics to the issue of ‘authority’ or whether it had been subsumed into the authority of conscience.

Peace

 

[Mea_Culpa]

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.

**So you’re saying that the reason sola scriptura isn’t taught in the Bible is because it isn’t necessary for salvation?

I thought it was the basis of your whole belief system, that the Scripture was your sole rule of faith, worship, and morals.

Now you’re saying it’s not necessary for salvation?

Sure sounds like a cop-out to me. What this really is, is you admitting that sola scriptura is unscriptural, that it is a false doctrine that is contradictory even within the limits of its own logic.

Sola scriptura says everything necessary for salvation is taught in Holy Scripture.
Sola scriptura is not taught in Holy Scripture.
Therefore, sola scriptura is not something necessary for salvation (which is your position).

As for your questions, since sola scriptura isn’t necessary for salvation, why should we spend time discussing it?**

 

[Dannyc]

Chosensinner,
So any Church will do as long as it meets the criteria that you set forth?
Does one just start attending various churches for awile until they find the one that meets the description and passes the litmus test?
Why are there so many darn choices out there?
Is this what Jesus had in mind when e said that we should all be one?
Still looking for some more help in this area?
God bless,
DannyC

 

[JRKH]

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?

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

Without SOME authority outside of individual interpretation- we must be at a loss right?

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.

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?

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.

Seems to me like you are in a pickle.

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

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

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

15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

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

 

[JRKH]

Chosensinner,
So any Church will do as long as it meets the criteria that you set forth?
Does one just start attending various churches for awile until they find the one that meets the description and passes the litmus test?
Why are there so many darn choices out there?

Because they have no authority beyond their own personal interpretation of Scripture. When non-catholics disagree among themselves they wind up creating some new “variant”.

Is this what Jesus had in mind when (H)e said that we should all be one?

Absolutely not. While Jesus did speak of dangers and trials for the Church, He never spoke in terms of multiple denominations or sects. This is why He gave His authority to The Church.

Still looking for some more help in this area?
God bless,
DannyC

We’ll keep trying to help you.

Peace
James

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

Des
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.

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.

 

[larry_m]

To DannyC. Revelation points us to the remnant church, Rev.12:17;14:12;22:14. Please notice the law in each of the criteria. Let me be perfectly clear. We are not saved by keeping the law. Works are the fruit of faith & love. It is written,“If you love me keep my commandments”. You don’t keep them to go to heaven or stay out of hell. Law is an acronym for, Love at Work. It means to love the WHOLE law, not just keep 8 or 9 commandments like some churches do. May the Eternal Spirit guide you to a bible believing church. Here is an example of SS with mans doctrines & commandments left out & man made tradition.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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.

The Church has always had the Old Testament, but we can see in Acts that the Church did not have a complete New Testament for many years. The Church predates the New Testament.

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.

Is it possible that your understanding of what the Scriptures teach is incorrect? Don’t you think the men who actually wrote the Scriptures (NT) would know what they meant well enough to teach the correct interpretation to others? We’re not talking about the “Telephone” game, we’re talking about men upon whom Jesus Himself breathed and promised to guide into ALL truth, who then laid hands upon their successors to pass on that same Spirit-guided truth even to this present day. St Paul in his epistles says, basically, “I’m writing you this letter for now, but I will teach you more fully when I’m there in person.” He knew that the written word can be misinterpreted and twisted unless you have some authoritative interpreter. I’d rather go with the interpretation that has come straight from the mouths of the Apostles than any interpretation that came at a much later date from someone who never even saw Jesus.

Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that has neither basis nor support in Sacred Scripture, and one need only look in their Yellow Pages to see the splintering that results when one only has the Bible in their hands. This is a big part of what drew me towards the Catholic Faith. All these different denominations, all supposedly reading the same Book, yet coming to conflicting and contradictory conclusions about what the Book teaches! Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations” He did not say, “Go and write this stuff down, they’ll figure it out.”

“We agree on the essentials, and it’s fine to disagree on the non-essentials” is a man-made tradition that has neither basis nor support in Sacred Scripture. There is no “non-essential” part of the Word of God!

 

[JRKH]

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 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

 

[JRKH]

To DannyC. Revelation points us to the remnant church, Rev.12:17;14:12;22:14. Please notice the law in each of the criteria. Let me be perfectly clear. We are not saved by keeping the law. Works are the fruit of faith & love. It is written,“If you love me keep my commandments”. You don’t keep them to go to heaven or stay out of hell. Law is an acronym for, Love at Work. It means to love the WHOLE law, not just keep 8 or 9 commandments like some churches do. May the Eternal Spirit guide you to a bible believing church. Here is an example of SS with mans doctrines & commandments left out & man made tradition.

And the best one, with the fullness of Truth is based in Rome, Founded by Chriat Himself and Protected by Him.

Peace
James

 

[justasking4]

JRKH;4125854]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

.
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.
Secondly, where did Jesus promise that He would protect the church from error? He never did. Rather He and His apostles warned there would be false teachers who would come into the church itself and decieve others.

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

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.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Thanks for the source Kathleen,

I just wanted to make sure that I understood the official catholic teaching on this particular point so I could see how its related (if at all) by catholics to the issue of ‘authority’ or whether it had been subsumed into the authority of conscience.

Peace

And you now have a personal conviction on our teaching?

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4125830]The Church has always had the Old Testament, but we can see in Acts that the Church did not have a complete New Testament for many years. The Church predates the New Testament.

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,

Is it possible that your understanding of what the Scriptures teach is incorrect?

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

Don’t you think the men who actually wrote the Scriptures (NT) would know what they meant well enough to teach the correct interpretation to others

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

We’re not talking about the “Telephone” game, we’re talking about men upon whom Jesus Himself breathed and promised to guide into ALL truth, who then laid hands upon their successors to pass on that same Spirit-guided truth even to this present day.

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.

St Paul in his epistles says, basically, “I’m writing you this letter for now, but I will teach you more fully when I’m there in person.” He knew that the written word can be misinterpreted and twisted unless you have some authoritative interpreter. I’d rather go with the interpretation that has come straight from the mouths of the Apostles than any interpretation that came at a much later date from someone who never even saw Jesus.

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

Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that has neither basis nor support in Sacred Scripture, and one need only look in their Yellow Pages to see the splintering that results when one only has the Bible in their hands. This is a big part of what drew me towards the Catholic Faith. All these different denominations, all supposedly reading the same Book, yet coming to conflicting and contradictory conclusions about what the Book teaches! Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations” He did not say, “Go and write this stuff down, they’ll figure it out.”

Do all these churches believe Christ is God and only by belief in Him can you be saved?

“We agree on the essentials, and it’s fine to disagree on the non-essentials” is a man-made tradition that has neither basis nor support in Sacred Scripture. There is no “non-essential” part of the Word of God!

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

 

[JRKH]

.
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.

The Teachings of the Church are clear. Often they are much clearer than what is recorded in the Bible. If and when questions about teaching arise, we have recourse to our Magisterium through our pastors and other learned people.

If individual catholics “interpret” the church’s teachings then that is something we would have to address on a case by case basis.

Secondly, **where did Jesus promise that He would protect the church from error? **

---

Matthew 16:18
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matthew 16:19
"I will **give you the keys **of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
Matthew 20:18-20
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

---

So by your estimation Jesus founded a Church capable of teaching error
Jesus Gave Authority to that Church to bind and loose error. - In heaven?
Jesus Promised to be with apostles (and successors) while they are teaching error?

He never did. Rather He and His apostles warned there would be false teachers who would come into the church itself and decieve others.

Yes He did and one of the Chief names among them is Luther.

Peace
James

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.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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,

Yes, the Apostles and Prophets who taught orally, and built the Church for years before anything was written down. Saul persecuted the Church and then had his Damascus Road vision, his name was changed to Paul, and later on he wrote epistles that we now have in our NT.

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

Ye of little faith.

Are you speaking of the actual authors of the Scriptures?

I am speaking of the men who took pen in hand, yes. The Scriptures are inspired by God, who used men. Did they not know or understand what they were writing?

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.

So we have no guarantees that anything is Truth. Wonderful. Maybe the whole NT was just made up by a bunch of guys who got sick and tired of the Pharisaical oppression. How would we know?

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

I’m guessing you meant to type a “not” in that second sentence. By what authority do you claim that the Catholic Church, who was guided well enough by the Holy Spirit to determine the NT Canon, doesn’t interpret it correctly?

Do all these churches believe Christ is God and only by belief in Him can you be saved?

No, some of them believe Christ was a prophet sent from God. Some claim that the Bible teaches that you must believe, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and speak in tongues to be saved. Are you saying that there are “essential” parts of the Bible and “non-essential” parts?

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

We’re not discussing Marian doctrines in this thread, we’re discussing the fact that even “Bible Only” Christians have traditions and beliefs that are not found in Scripture, thus making their alleged belief in Sola Scriptura moot. If you want to start a thread on Mary, I’ll be happy to participate. Everything the Church teaches about Mary is taught because it ties into what the Church believes about Christ.