Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

Yes. If the Scriptures have been shown to possess the attributes of inspiration and inerrancy then we know that they are. If someone says there is another like it then they have to show what it is and why. Until that is done we can say that the Scriptures alone are the ultimate authority.

The person who is accussing must present the evidence for the charge. If there is no evidence then the jury would not convict.

No, ja4, this will not work. the Scriptures have not “been shown” by you. You have not verified their inerrancy or inspiration. You have no table of contents. In order for you to validate your claim, you will have to establish it apart from Catholic history, since you consider that an invalid source.

Until it can be proven there is another inspired-inerrant authority then **i am justified **in saying the Scriptures alone are to ultimate and sole authority.

Indeed, God in His infinite grace has decreed that you should be permitted to justify yourself…

" But he, desiring to justify himself…"Luke 10:29

I don’t believe that matters of faith can necessarily be “proven”.

What does exclusivity have to do with inspiration-inerrancy?

Nothing. That is the point. Just because the scriptures are inspired and inerrant does not exclude everything else as valid.

Although it is recorded in John 20:30 that Jesus did other things not recorded in the gospel we don’t know exactly what it was. Its not recorded. No one knows what it was. So we are again back to the Scriptures which is the only record of what Jesus said and did.

You are also free to remain in ignorance of those truths, if you so desire. God’s word is recorded on the hearts of those who have received it, and we know what it was. If you wish to limit yourself to part of His revelation, you are free to do so.

It doesn’t nor does it need to. The reason is that we know what the nature of the Scriptures are i.e. inspired-inerrant. There is no debate about that. The Scriptures are a one of a kind authority because of its nature as being God-breathed.

Yes, if Scripture was supposed to be the ultimate authority, it would certainly say so about itself. Especially it would avoid pointing to the Apostolic Succession for authority. there is no debate here about the inspired and inerrant nature of the scriptures, except the basis of your claim. Authority requires will power, and the ability to act. Scripture does not have this quality.

What you need to do is to prove another authority this is also inspired-inerrant. The last time that happened was 2000 years ago in the person of the Lord Jesus.

News flash, ja4, Jesus is not dead, and His Person is still in the Church.

In fact, other sources of authority are irrelevant here. The thread is bearing testimony that SS believers find this doctrine outside of the Scripture. It is based on teaching that is not found in scripture, and that is why we say that SS don’ t really believe in SS.

Right now we are discussing the idea that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant and does this make them the sole and ultimate authority for Christians. So far what we have found is that the Scriptures alone qualify. I have yet to see any catholics prove another authority that is at the same level.

Well, this would not be the appropriate thread for it anyway. You are trying to purport that the nature of the scriptures equals out to SS, and this is not the case.

Perhaps another way to answer this is to look at examples how it is applied. The Scriptures are clear on a large number of things we are not to do. It gets very specific on sins to be avoided. Most catholics would agree with this.

Also outside the scope of the thread.

The difference can readily be seen in those things that the Catholic church either adds of substracts from Scripture. Take eating meat on Fridays during Lent. It was and may still be a sin to do so for a catholic. Now there is no such prohibition in the Scriptures on this and would be rejected by a Sola Scripturaist.

Also outside the scope of the thread.

Another example would be church leadership. The Roman Catholic demands that its bishops be single and celibate.

No, ja4, but that is also outside the scope of the thread.

The Scriptures on the other hand teach a man is to be married and have children. The Sola Scripturaist would reject the teachings of Rome because it does not line up with Scripture.

Yes, we know this, but that is not the topic of the thread. Is your attempt to change the subject a concession?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4173693]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What does exclusivity have to do with inspiration-inerrancy?
guanophore
Nothing. That is the point. Just because the scriptures are inspired and inerrant does not exclude everything else as valid.

What else is “valid” i.e. inspired-inerrant?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4173693]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Although it is recorded in John 20:30 that Jesus did other things not recorded in the gospel we don’t know exactly what it was. Its not recorded. No one knows what it was. So we are again back to the Scriptures which is the only record of what Jesus said and did.

guanophore;
You are also free to remain in ignorance of those truths, if you so desire. God’s word is recorded on the hearts of those who have received it, and we know what it was. If you wish to limit yourself to part of His revelation, you are free to do so.

What exactly were these “other things” Jesus did not recorded in the Scriptures? Can you show me what these things were? View attachment 4068

 

[guanophore]

My belief comes from a lot of study and understanding the nature of the Scriptures.

Thank you for your honesty. Your belief in SS, then, comes from a source outside the scriptures themselves.

Since you agree that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant then compare them with what the Catholic church teaches on its various doctrines. Take the marian doctrines. Where we see anything about her immaculate conception in Scripture? Where do we see any claims by her or anyone else that she was without sin? Look up passages and verses in context and see if this is the case or is the church reading back into the passages something that is not there?

ja4, CAF is not a venue for you to attempt to pull Catholics away from their faith.

You are off topic in this evangelistic effort.

I is also ridiculous to say “reading back into” the passages. The Catholic Church wrote the NT, and everything in it expresses the faith of the Church. There is no need to “read back into the passages”, since there is nothing there that contradicts the Apostolic Teachings.

What exactly were these “other things” Jesus did not recorded in the Scriptures? Can you show me what these things were?

Off topic.

What else is “valid” i.e. inspired-inerrant?

Apparently your own study, and what you have been taught by others about the scripture, since those are the basis for your SS doctrine.

This, at least, proves the point of the topic that your SS doctrine comes from outside scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I will be honest, it is hard to say. My family was of the protestant bend but I can not call what they believed as Christian. I myself had spent time in several different protestant churches looking for the truth. I would always find one or another thing that they taught that directly contradicted scripture and I would then assume that they were a false church, since they claimed to follow the scriptures. I had even gotten to the point where I thought that all christianity must be false if not one of these churches is able to get it right. They claimed to follow scripture and read the Bible but when I would go to their services I often found that I was the only one who knew what the pastor was saying was completely anti-biblical. They had the book right there. It wasn’t like they couldn’t open it up and read it if they wanted to.

This lead me to examining other religions. I studied Islam for a while. That was pretty short as no one who decerns can agree with what Islam teaches. I also studied Hinduism, Jainism and the like. This eventually lead me to Buddhism. Yet each time I discovered that these religions were false, and not only that, but they contradicted their own claims.

Then one day for almost no appearant reason I went into a Catholic Church.

I will save you the details of my conversion story but let’s just say that I converted to the truth that very day and studied for two years to recieve baptism.

Now my family was ok with me going to different protestant churches. Within my family there were different people who went to different churches all the time. Each one went to his own place. They really did seem not very serious about it. They didn’t mind when I went to study Islam or Hinduism. They looked up to me for being “spiritual”.

When I told them that I was going to become a Catholic, there was violence. I spent the rest of my teenage years in a foster home because I was put out. Only when I was going to become a Catholic was I ever accused with “you’re not a Christian.” I can not tell you the half of the hateful things said and done to me from this. Yet they were my family. I had to forgive them. But it only got worse as time went on.

I will not go into all of it but I will say that everyone in my family believed in sola scriptura. This seems very odd to me now since none of them really ever read the bible and my father was in fact illitterate since he was not allowed to go to school as a child due to his skin color (yet another fruit of sola scriptura). My mother eventually did learn to read and write some and I have exchanged letters with her recently after these many years. But you want to know the odd thing. It was a Catholic Priest who taught my mother to read and write so that she could write to me. All of the protestants just figured she was too stupid to learn.

“Almost no apparent reason” ?

Bless you for your sacrifice, and blessings upon your family, and may the Lord free all those in the grip of prejudice.

 

[guanophore]

This question also applies to catholics. Even in the Catholic church there are a number of different interpretations on all kinds of doctrines and practices. Does this cause you concern?

Great concern, which is what brings me to CAF. I am concerned about all those who deny the Teachings of Jesus that were committed to the Apostles and handed down to us.

However, what has that got to do with the topic? Are you trying to derail another thread?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Yes. If the Scriptures have been shown to possess the attributes of inspiration and inerrancy then we know that they are. If someone says there is another like it then they have to show what it is and why. Until that is done we can say that the Scriptures alone are the ultimate authority.

.

First of all, how do you know the scriptures are inerrant - inspired?

Secondly, it’s been shown over and over on here that Jesus founded a Church, gave it the power to bind and loose, gave it the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, said the gates of Hades would not prevail against it, promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth, etc. Your only response to all of this has been along the lines of saying, “Nope.” Then you just pretend nobody ever said it.

Talk about invincible ignorance.

 

[guanophore]

First of all, how do you know the scriptures are inerrant - inspired?

Secondly, it’s been shown over and over on here that Jesus founded a Church, gave it the power to bind and loose, gave it the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, said the gates of Hades would not prevail against it, promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth, etc. Your only response to all of this has been along the lines of saying, “Nope.” Then you just pretend nobody ever said it.

Talk about invincible ignorance.

I really do pray so.

 

[valiermn]

your salvation could veyr well be in jeopardy…

you know the truth but you reject it??

hmm…

I thought Salvation was gained through Jesus Christ not 'Distracted"
Christiananity is the way to Salvation not just the Catholic denomination but all Christian who follow Christ and live as he did. The Idea that tradition is more important than scripture is absurd. I remember growing up Catholic the idea that only the Priest, Bishops and The Pope can only interpit scripture was hard for me. I have heard so Many Catholics say “we do not have to read the Bibile because the priest reads it for us during Mass and in three years we have read the entire Bible” Several of the Reforms translated the Bible into the vinacular so the lay person could read it. The Roman catholic church then did not want lay people reading the bible If they did they would not have control over the layity.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I thought Salvation was gained through Jesus Christ not 'Distracted"
Christiananity is the way to Salvation not just the Catholic denomination but all Christian who follow Christ and live as he did. The Idea that tradition is more important than scripture is absurd. I remember growing up Catholic the idea that only the Priest, Bishops and The Pope can only interpit scripture was hard for me. I have heard so Many Catholics say “we do not have to read the Bibile because the priest reads it for us during Mass and in three years we have read the entire Bible” Several of the Reforms translated the Bible into the vinacular so the lay person could read it. The Roman catholic church then did not want lay people reading the bible If they did they would not have control over the layity.

Strange I believe that the Catholic Church translated the Holy Bible a couple of years prior to the KJV. I have two copies of this translated Bible in my home one is always on my desk. Oh and the origional KJV had all the books in it.

I have heard it said that Catholics get more Holy Scripture in the Mass then “reformers” get in their sermons.

“Studied & educated” interpretation seems to me as being far better then “personal & emotional” interpretation.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I thought Salvation was gained through Jesus Christ not 'Distracted"
Christiananity is the way to Salvation not just the Catholic denomination but all Christian who follow Christ and live as he did. The Idea that tradition is more important than scripture is absurd. I remember growing up Catholic the idea that only the Priest, Bishops and The Pope can only interpit scripture was hard for me. I have heard so Many Catholics say “we do not have to read the Bibile because the priest reads it for us during Mass and in three years we have read the entire Bible” Several of the Reforms translated the Bible into the vinacular so the lay person could read it. The Roman catholic church then did not want lay people reading the bible If they did they would not have control over the layity.

Salvation is through Jesus Christ, who left us a Church, the original members of said Church gave us the Holy Scriptures. The “Reformers” were not the first to translate the Scripture into the vernacular, which wasn’t as necessary as you might think. In that time, if you could read at all, you could read and understand Latin, which was indeed the vernacular for quite a long time.

Those Catholics that you grew up around apparently weren’t aware the the laity are encouraged to study Sacred Scripture. It wasn’t that the Church didn’t want people to read the Scriptures, but for most of Church history the average Christian was illiterate. Before the advent of the printing press, it cost more than most people could afford to own a Bible. Would you be willing/able to save up a year’s salary, and then wait three years (at least) for your own hand-written copy of the Bible?

 

[guanophore]

I thought Salvation was gained through Jesus Christ not 'Distracted"
Christiananity is the way to Salvation not just the Catholic denomination but all Christian who follow Christ and live as he did.

Catholicism is not a “denomination”

Not all who say “Lord, Lord” shall enter.

The Idea that tradition is more important than scripture is absurd.

I agree. Just as absurd as scripture being more important than Tradition!

I remember growing up Catholic the idea that only the Priest, Bishops and The Pope can only interpit scripture was hard for me. I have heard so Many Catholics say “we do not have to read the Bibile because the priest reads it for us during Mass and in three years we have read the entire Bible”

Sadly, I have heard this too.

Several of the Reforms translated the Bible into the vinacular so the lay person could read it. The Roman catholic church then did not want lay people reading the bible If they did they would not have control over the layity.

This is not the reason. Looks like you have some research to do on your own family history!

Welcome to CAF.

 

[jhblack]

Forgive me for jumping in with this thought so late in the game. I read through most of the posts here and I’ve seen a lot of good Catholic arguements and a few good Protestant arguements, but each arguement is being repeated, either more accurately or less accurately.

I wanted to pose this question:

If Scriptures are all that’s required, then does one need a teacher/education to understand them?

And another:

Does one need to be literate in order to read Scripture?

The second question seems a little silly, but so does sola scriptura. If the Bible is all that is required to enter Heaven, then you shouldn’t need the separate teaching of literacy. If one does need to learn how to read first (which one does), then one has an additional requirement to enter Heaven, which is literacy.

Sola scriptura depends on literacy for one (which is a teaching separate from the Bible), and also the personal interpretation of the reader. So, if a person cannot read but is taught their salvation from a minister of say… a Lutheran church, then that lay person is dependent on the minister to find truth, but that minister is preaching based on personal opinion (and btw, because that person is dependent on another person and not scripture, that person is necessarily refuting sola scriptura).

I’m also curious to get a n-C interpretation of this:

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Also:

“15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” ( 2 Peter 3:15-16)

And also:

Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; 1 Tim. 3:14-15

Blessings.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It’s true, few Protestants actually practice sola scriptura. The vast majority simply go along with their pastor’s viewpoints, or the teaching of some persuasive preacher. They rarely form their theological opinions by scripture alone.

Now and then one of them does read scripture alone and comes up with his own ideas, teaches them and gets a following, and a new man-made denomination is born.

 

[justasking4]

jhblack;4175550]
Forgive me for jumping in with this thought so late in the game. I read through most of the posts here and I’ve seen a lot of good Catholic arguements and a few good Protestant arguements, but each arguement is being repeated, either more accurately or less accurately.

I wanted to pose this question:

If Scriptures are all that’s required, then does one need a teacher/education to understand them?

Since the Scriptures teach that Christ gave the church pastor-teachers then it would be good to learn from those who know the Scriptures.

jhblack
And another:

Does one need to be literate in order to read Scripture?

Yes. However they can be taught to read or listen to the Scriptures being read to them.

jhblack
The second question seems a little silly, but so does sola scriptura. If the Bible is all that is required to enter Heaven, then you shouldn’t need the separate teaching of literacy. If one does need to learn how to read first (which one does), then one has an additional requirement to enter Heaven, which is literacy.

Belief in Sola Scriptura is not required to enter heaven.

jhblack
Sola scriptura depends on literacy for one (which is a teaching separate from the Bible), and also the personal interpretation of the reader. So, if a person cannot read but is taught their salvation from a minister of say… a Lutheran church, then that lay person is dependent on the minister to find truth, but that minister is preaching based on personal opinion (and btw, because that person is dependent on another person and not scripture, that person is necessarily refuting sola scriptura).

The issue is not personal that makes something true but are there facts that can be demonstrated to show that a particular interpretation best fits the facts? This is where a lot of false teachings are shown. They fail either in misinterpreting the Scriptures themselves or add or subtract from the Scriptures. We see this in the marian doctrines for example.

jhblack
I’m also curious to get a n-C interpretation of this:

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Also:

“15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” ( 2 Peter 3:15-16)

And also:

Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; 1 Tim. 3:14-15
Blessings

.
Has the catholic church officially interpreted this passages? If so, what do they say? The point is that you are going to need their official interpretation to determine if the ones I offer are right or wrong.

 

[justasking4]

mackbrislawn;4176943]It’s true, few Protestants actually practice sola scriptura. The vast majority simply go along with their pastor’s viewpoints, or the teaching of some persuasive preacher. They rarely form their theological opinions by scripture alone.

Don’t you think catholics are guilty of the same thing?

Now and then one of them does read scripture alone and comes up with his own ideas, teaches them and gets a following, and a new man-made denomination is born

.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Don’t you think catholics are guilty of the same thing?

.

Nope

 

[PerryJ]

.
Has the catholic church officially interpreted this passages? If so, what do they say? The point is that you are going to need their official interpretation to determine if the ones I offer are right or wrong.

I keep seeing your question “has the Catholic Church intepreted this passage?” It appears that you think this is a good point of refutation. It again shows how your define God one line at a time. We first do not defined God. God define himself to us. Second we take the Bible as a whole; which, is how any literate person reads any book.

If you use this argument in order for us to not use scripture is an illogical argument. Your interpretations are man made as demonstrated by the various Protestant interpretation there are. Yet you would deny us to use scripture. The logic of your argument is very poor.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Yes. If the Scriptures have been shown to possess the attributes of inspiration and inerrancy then we know that they are. If someone says there is another like it then they have to show what it is and why. Until that is done we can say that the Scriptures alone are the ultimate authority.

So I should believe you based upon what? Your say so?

The person who is accussing must present the evidence for the charge. If there is no evidence then the jury would not convict.

But, can’t you see, this is what I have been asking you to do all along: present your evidence. Since you have presented none to show me this is a revelation from God, I must reject your idea that scripture is the sole rule of faith.

Until it can be proven there is another inspired-inerrant authority then i am justified in saying the Scriptures alone are to ultimate and sole authority.

No. You are not. If something cannot be disproven, that does not automatically mean it is true. This is another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

What does exclusivity have to do with inspiration-inerrancy?

Again, this is what I’ve been asking you all along. When I asked why you believed scripture is the **sole **rule of faith, you said they were inspired and inerrant. But those two qualities do not prove they are exclusive. Thank you for finally seeing this point.

Although it is recorded in John 20:30 that Jesus did other things not recorded in the gospel we don’t know exactly what it was. Its not recorded. No one knows what it was. So we are again back to the Scriptures which is the only record of what Jesus said and did.

You assume “No one knows what it was” because it isn’t written down. Where does your sole rule of faith (scripture) say that “No one knows what it was”? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

It doesn’t nor does it need to. The reason is that we know what the nature of the Scriptures are i.e. inspired-inerrant. There is no debate about that. The Scriptures are a one of a kind authority because of its nature as being God-breathed.

Where does scripture say that scripture is a “one of a kind authority”? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

What you need to do is to prove another authority this is also inspired-inerrant. The last time that happened was 2000 years ago in the person of the Lord Jesus.

You know, I’m not the brightest person, but I’m not gullible enough to fall for these constant attempts of yours to shift your burden of proof to me. You might as well stop it.

Right now we are discussing the idea that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant and does this make them the sole and ultimate authority for Christians. So far what we have found is that the Scriptures alone qualify. I have yet to see any catholics prove another authority that is at the same level.

Once again you are asking me to disprove your point. The burden of proof is on you. On you!!! The statement is yours, the burden of proof is yours.

I take it from this that you concede the point that you cannot prove scripture is the sole rule of faith. I’ve asked three times, and you have not provided any proof.

If this really were God’s intent, don’t you think he would have told us? Don’t you think he would have made it absolutely clear? The salvation of souls is at stake!

Perhaps another way to answer this is to look at examples how it is applied. The Scriptures are clear on a large number of things we are not to do. It gets very specific on sins to be avoided. Most catholics would agree with this.
The difference can readily be seen in those things that the Catholic church either adds of substracts from Scripture.

It looks to me like you’re adding to scripture. You’re adding the idea that scripture is the sole rule of faith. Where does scripture say this? If it doesn’t, haven’t you added to scripture?

Take eating meat on Fridays during Lent. It was and may still be a sin to do so for a catholic. Now there is no such prohibition in the Scriptures on this and would be rejected by a Sola Scripturaist.
Another example would be church leadership. The Roman Catholic demands that its bishops be single and celibate. The Scriptures on the other hand teach a man is to be married and have children. The Sola Scripturaist would reject the teachings of Rome because it does not line up with Scripture.

Nice try to change the subject. If you want to debate these other issues, feel free to open threads about them.

Meanwhile, where is your proof? This is the fourth time I’ve asked!!! Where is your proof?

 

[Kay_Cee]

My belief comes from a lot of study and understanding the nature of the Scriptures.

Let me get this straight, just so we’re clear. You’re basing the idea that scripture is the sole rule of faith on your own personal study? Not on a revelation from God? You’re basing it on a fallible human being, not on God? You’re not even basing it on what you claim is your sole rule of faith (scripture) but on your own study?

Since you agree that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant then compare them with what the Catholic church teaches on its various doctrines. Take the marian doctrines. Where we see anything about her immaculate conception in Scripture? Where do we see any claims by her or anyone else that she was without sin? Look up passages and verses in context and see if this is the case or is the church reading back into the passages something that is not there?

I will not derail this thread with a discussion about other topics. You are always free to open a thread about anything you want and discuss it there.

But unless you can show me where scripture claims your idea that scripture is the sole rule of faith, I will have to say you are adding to scripture yourself.

So far what I’ve seen from you is:

1. a claim that if your statement cannot be disproven, it must be true, (which, BTW, is also asking me to prove a negative)
2. many attempts to shift your burden of proof onto someone else,
3. attempts to change the subject.

What do you think it says to others reading this thread that when I ask you for evidence to back up your statement, all you provide is this? None of these prove your point. I have asked you over and over again for proof. If you cannot provide proof, please have the honesty and integrity to say so.