Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[PerryJ]

The Church didn’t do this Christ did .

That is right. Christ defined that we neede to have succession.

Have to look at this one, pleas tell me where Clement said this. What book and such so I can see it please.

I will bring tomorrow.

While they may deferred it does not mean they thought rome was the head.

Semantics to avoid the obvious

One Bible, one has more books than the other

Which accoriding to your own reformer produces a different theology

All the books in the Bible were in use before they were formally declared, God made sure the Christians had what they need.

No one knew which were correct and which were not. Look up the list created of the NT from different cities. Each city thought they had the correct list. This statment ignores basic history.

Actually it can be quite supported from history and the use of traditions along with Scriptures at the same authoritative level can’t be supported from Scriptures. The use of Scriptures alone can though.

How is it support by history? You will quote a couple of Church Father writings taken out of context. I will supply the whole quote and prove it was taken out of context. I will then supply statement from them supporting the Church and that straying away from the Church is heresy. The authortity of the Church is Biblical. Find anywhere in the bible where Sola Scriptura is defined by the Bible. Your faith can’t and you know it. Your faith can’t even define which books should be considered inspired.

They searched Scripture daily, yes it wasn’t the NT but it also wasn’t tradition neither. It was Scripture alone, now if they were wrong then they should have been corrected.

This is your support for Sola Scriptura? We defined the Bible. We do not aruge that the Bible isn’t indeed wonderful. For you to believe that the Bible was in anyway defined or read in each city is simply ignoring every secular or christian historian I have ever read. As of these writings not even all of the scriputre were written. You can not even define what scripture he is referring to. Was it the OT or NT? Do you know?

Sorry I messed up the quotes.

 

[guanophore]

To answer this fully would require pages and pages. I know that Catholics and Protestants agree on this so its not necessary to go into it.

It is indeed necessary, and don’t worry about space! We have plenty of pages left.

You see, the Bible does not state what comprises the Bible, and no, Catholics and Protestants don’t agree on the contents. If you think you have an infallible rule of faith, then that rule should make this claim, and it should have a list of it’s contents. The fact that it has neither shows that it is not a complete rule of faith.

Probably because i’m dense—

this may be true, but it is not an excuse for dodging the truth. You have been asked to show how you know which books are scripture, and where in that Scripture the doctrine of SS is taught. You have been able to produce neither. It is not your fault, or your density. YOu can’t produce this evidence because it does not exist.

Do you doubt that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired-inerrant?

Definitely they cannot qualify for infallibility, because that requires action, and the do not “act” themselves.

I’m arguing from a different perspective and that is from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since we agree that they are inspired-inerrant then it follows that they carry an authority higher than any institution or man since they are from God Himself.

We understand your arguement, but it holds no water. The fact that they are inspired-inerrant has nothing to do with the existence of other inspired-inerrant sources.

The other mistake you make is that the Church is a human institution, which it is not. Jesus built the Church, and it is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is not a 'man made institution" as you seem to think. This is a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church, and is also disputed by those very scriptures you claim to hold as “infallible”.

You do carrry the burden in demonstrating another "infallible-inspired-inerrant" rule since i have claimed there is no other.

That is silly. You can claim that your hair is green with purple roots. That does not obligate anyone to the ‘burden’ of proving otherwise!

If you think there is, then what is it? If you say its the Catholic church then we can look at the Catholic church and see if it does meet the standard of being "infallible-inspired-inerrant". If you say its the pope, then the same tests will need to be done.

That is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is about the fact that Protestants who claim Sola Scriptura actually do not really believe that, since the claim itself is not in Scripture. You yourself admit that your arguement is based not on Scripture but “on the nature of the scriptures themselves”.

It doesn't nor is it necessary. We already know the nature of the Scriptures. Its divine nature is derived from God Himself. Since this is the case, this is what makes them the sole infallible-inspired-inerrant rule of faith. To defeat this idea that the Scriptures are not the "sole" infallible rule of faith we need to see another rule that qualifies. That has yet to be done.

No, ja4, the fact that God has produced something that is inspired and inerrant does not mean that He intended it to be used inappropriately. He also produced HIs Church, and gave the Church His spirit. He intended for these to go together “until the last day”. Sola Scripturists separate what God has joined, resulting in loss and error.

 

[guanophore]

Thank GOD for the sinner’s prayer.
The trademark tradition of the “me & JESUS only” church is the sinner’s prayer.If I had not been invited ,through this tradition, to ASK JESUS to forgive me and be my LORD and SAVIOUR, I may never have entered the journey.
Perhaps GOD is calling non catholic evangelists to Catholic conversion to participate in the Eucharistic celebration of the Actual Body and Blood of CHRIST.Then they could properly utilize the tradition of the sinner’s prayer to lead the lost to the way and trust the church that JESUS built for the proper teaching to help them along the way.
For that reason, I converted to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in 2007 at the age of 57.
I started out in the " me & JESUS only " church
but now am a very thankful member of the" we and JESUS " church.
I found out, it’s not about me !

Thank you and welcome.

 

[abenassi]

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:

Be careful when you use a capital-“t” “Tradition” because that implies sacred Tradition, which is much different from these traditions of which you speak. Welcome home!

 

[historyb]

PerryJ could you fix your quotes please, just take the backslash out of the first

thanks.

 

[PerryJ]

That is right. Christ defined that we needed to have succession.

Have to look at this one, pleas tell me where Clement said this. What book and such so I can see it please.

 

[historyb]

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.

I purpose most Protestant don’t understand what Sola Scriptura means as many Catholics really don’t understand what the Church teaches. Yes Alter Calls are not found in Scripture and there is some who decry this.

1. Asking Jesus into your heart by praying a prayer. Not found in scripture, this is Tradition.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, out the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. I believe that’s where this concept comes from.

1. Protestants do not interpret scriptures with scripture(not always) but interpret them through life circumstances and through their experiences.

We all do that with everything, but that still does not make Sola Scriptura wrong just misapplied.

1. 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:

No Protestant don’t have “infallible” leaders you should know that, sure people cling to others but they know no one is infallible. I was a Protestant for 25 yeers, Catholic for 10 years and have been wondering lately about Catholicism. Actually I wasn’t really sure ever since I became Catholic.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4163050]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m arguing from a different perspective and that is from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since we agree that they are inspired-inerrant then it follows that they carry an authority higher than any institution or man since they are from God Himself.

guanophore
We understand your arguement, but it holds no water. The fact that they are inspired-inerrant has nothing to do with the existence of other inspired-inerrant sources.

This is true. However since I’m making the claim that the Scriptures are the SOLE inspired-inerrant authority then it will be up to you to produce another. Can you do so?

The other mistake you make is that the Church is a human institution, which it is not.

Jesus built the Church, and it is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is not a 'man made institution" as you seem to think. This is a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church, and is also disputed by those very scriptures you claim to hold as “infallible”.

Nonsense. The church may have certain divine qualities that does not mean its not also a human institution since it is composed of humans. This is why a person can never sustain a claim that the church can never err since it is composed of fallible humans. Remember Jesus Himself did not stop the first pope from sinning and erring

 

[guanophore]

This is true. However since I’m making the claim that the Scriptures are the SOLE inspired-inerrant authority then it will be up to you to produce another. Can you do so?

Yes but not only is there no need to do so, since the inspired-inerrant qualities of the Scriptures do not themselves preclude other such sources, but it is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is about the fact that Protestants who claim to adhere to SS actually do not, since espousing this view requires that they base their belief on several extrabiblical doctrines.

Nonsense. The church may have certain divine qualities that does not mean its not also a human institution since it is composed of humans. This is why a person can never sustain a claim that the church can never err since it is composed of fallible humans. Remember Jesus Himself did not stop the first pope from sinning and erring

Well, you may find the teaching of Jesus “nonsense”. Many do. God is able even out of stones to raise up children to Abraham, and He is able out of fallen people to raise up Apostles, Prophets, Teachers etc who form the foundation stones of His Body, the Church. It is His Divine nature that makes the Church infallible.

I agree, Jesus does not prevent individuals from sinning, but He does keep the Church, for whom he gave His blood, pure and undefiled in spite of the sinful men who are attached to her.

 

[distracted]

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were bogus from the start. It was just Luther’s way of justifying the rebellion. He was so disgusted with the Church that he came up with some new doctrines to explain that there really shouldn’t be a Church. The joke is that we have Protestant theologians spending their lives supporting these doctrines when they are patently absurd and illegitimate on their faces. It is not an issue of “we agree to disagree.” The Protestants are wrong on this, and should know it, as the initial poster says. If you want to rebel and start your own Chuch, go ahead, but have to character to just say it’s because you just don’t like the first Church.

i agree…

except that i don’t really believe M. Luther was “disgusted with the Church”. I think he just wanted to be freed from the strictures of Christianity… (true Christianity). He wanted a Christianity that would allow him to continue sinning… because he basically felt he couldn’t overcome sin. in our own power, of course, we cannot… & we will fall a hundred times in our christian walk… but if we give up, as Luther did… we are in for trouble… Purgatory (if we are “good enough” to get there) is no walk in the park. It is Hell… that eventually ends… & i heard the usual stay there is 40 yrs… sometimes it is more than that… who wants to be in Hell for that long?? (I know you probably know this kind of thing but others here may not…).

anyway… Luther had nothing to be disgusted with… (other than human sinful nature… which is not something peculiar to hte Catholic church - by a LONG shot).

 

[distracted]

Claudius, if you do not find a way to express yourself in a more charitable manner, then you are going to get sanctioned. Catholics here are expected to give a defense of the faith in gentleness. Instead you are making rash and hostile sounding accusations without merit.

maybe Claudias is not saying things in a very charitable way… but neither are a lot of the Protestants here… why isn’t anyone reprimanding them? & even though i haven’t read all C’s posts… i do not feel he is being judmental… (the ones i have read)… Frankly, i hate when someone accuses someone of being judgmental. It always comes across as… judgmental…

 

[distracted]

Where does it say in the Scriptures that the Roman Catholic church is the church that Christ established? Where is this name, “Roman Catholic” used?

where does it say the bible is all a person needs for salvation (a book that wasn’t put in its present book form until 600 yrs ago)? Where does it say that there should be 35,000 different “churches” all teaching different things. Where does it say that anyone can interpret the bible for himself… (Actually, it says no sciprture is up for private interpretation [St. Peter]). Where are altar calls mentioned? Where does it say you are saved by faith alone?

Where does it say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ???

 

[justasking4]

where does it say the bible is all a person needs for salvation (a book that wasn’t put in its present book form until 600 yrs ago)? Where does it say that there should be 35,000 different “churches” all teaching different things. Where does it say that anyone can interpret the bible for himself… (Actually, it says no sciprture is up for private interpretation [St. Peter]). Where are altar calls mentioned? Where does it say you are saved by faith alone?

Where does it say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ???

You bring up some good questions but what do they have to do with the great doctrine called SOLA SCRIPTURA?

 

[guanophore]

You bring up some good questions but what do they have to do with the great doctrine called SOLA SCRIPTURA?

The thread is not about SS, it is about the fact that it is an extrabiblical doctrine. Therefore, all the points brought up are relevant.

distracted:

where does it say the bible is all a person needs for salvation (a book that wasn’t put in its present book form until 600 yrs ago)? Where does it say that there should be 35,000 different “churches” all teaching different things. Where does it say that anyone can interpret the bible for himself… (Actually, it says no sciprture is up for private interpretation [St. Peter]). Where are altar calls mentioned? Where does it say you are saved by faith alone?

Where does it say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ???

If SS is all that a believer needs, then why are all these extrabiblical practices “included” with SS?

 

[justasking4]

The thread is not about SS, it is about the fact that it is an extrabiblical doctrine. Therefore, all the points brought up are relevant.

If SS is all that a believer needs, then why are all these extrabiblical practices “included” with SS?

Where do you get the idea that SS is all a believer needs? Do you think its part of the definition?

 

[guanophore]

Where do you get the idea that SS is all a believer needs? Do you think its part of the definition?

SS maintains that the Bible is the sole infallible rule for the believer. If this were true, don’t you think that the Bible would include this statement in itself? Don’t you think the Bible would have a list of the books that are considered inspired-inerrant?

 

[justasking4]

eucharist04
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.

What about Acts 2:36-38?
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This ceratinly looks like some kind of response to the message Peter preached.

1. Asking Jesus into your heart bying praying a prayer. Not found in scripture, this is Tradition.

Romans 10:8-10;
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

1. Protestants do not interpet scriptures with scripture(not always) but interpet them through life circumstances and through their experiences.

This has to do with the application-implication of a given sermon or teaching. Good preaching does this kind of thing.

1. Protestants also execpt thier leaders “infallible” interpetation of scripture.

I have never heard of this. This would be a pretty bold claim to make on some passages.

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

Is this what caused you convert?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Where do you get the idea that SS is all a believer needs? Do you think its part of the definition?

guanophore
SS maintains that the Bible is the sole infallible rule for the believer. If this were true, don’t you think that the Bible would include this statement in itself? Don’t you think the Bible would have a list of the books that are considered inspired-inerrant?

No. I suppose it would be helpful in these discussions but such a statement is not found in the Scriptures. However, the answers to your questions are dealt with in other ways than the direct approach anti-protestants demand.

 

[guanophore]

What about Acts 2:36-38?
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This ceratinly looks like some kind of response to the message Peter preached.

Oh, I agree! but you notice they did not come up and get counseled through the “sinners prayer”, but were invited to baptism, which is the means by which Jesus taught that we become members of the Body of Christ.

Romans 10:8-10;
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The “believe in your heart” that Paul was writing about in Romans is the obedience of faith. One embraces “all that Jesus began to do and to teach until he was taken up”. One does not get “saved” by uttering some words, but from embracing the teaching of Jesus.

No. I suppose it would be helpful in these discussions but such a statement is not found in the Scriptures. However, the answers to your questions are dealt with in other ways than the direct approach anti-protestants demand.

I would not know about that, since I am not “anti-protestant”. I embrace the Catholic teaching that all who are validly baptized are members of the One Body of Christ,a nd that we are separated brethren. Therefore, I do not have the need or desire to tear at my brethren and wound the body of Christ even further.

I do believe, though, that if the Bible were meant to be the sole infallible rule of faith, it would say this about itself clearly. SInce it does not, and in fact, states the opposite, I think that this idea represents a “new gospel”, different than what was delivered by the Apostles, and must be rejected.

 

[valiermn]

i agree…

except that i don’t really believe M. Luther was “disgusted with the Church”. I think he just wanted to be freed from the strictures of Christianity… (true Christianity). He wanted a Christianity that would allow him to continue sinning… because he basically felt he couldn’t overcome sin. in our own power, of course, we cannot… & we will fall a hundred times in our christian walk… but if we give up, as Luther did… we are in for trouble… Purgatory (if we are “good enough” to get there) is no walk in the park. It is Hell… that eventually ends… & i heard the usual stay there is 40 yrs… sometimes it is more than that… who wants to be in Hell for that long?? (I know you probably know this kind of thing but others here may not…).

anyway… Luther had nothing to be disgusted with… (other than human sinful nature… which is not something peculiar to hte Catholic church - by a LONG shot).

Oh give me a break .Luther Did not want to start any church to continue sinning .Where do you get this stuff ? You have a great deal to learn about the reformation period.