Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Mea_Culpa]

Not so. Even though the doctrine stated as such is spelled out specifically in the Scriptures it still does not change the fact that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant.

Where is the doctrine “spelled out specifically in the Scriptures”?

I have already challenged you to show why it is necessary for Sola Scriptura to be stated as such in the Scriptures and i don’t remember you answering that.

Several people have pointed out over and over - if sola scriptura teaches that scripture is the sole (sola) rule of faith - the doctrine of “sola scriptura” must be plainly taught in scripture.

It isn’t.

You well know these were examples that were used to show what happens to those who reject the Scriptures as the ultimate authority and where it leads. This is very dishonest of you not to acknowledge this.

No, these were all attempts to derail the discussion because you have no way to defend sola scriptura.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4093&d=1221602929

This is about as articulate and intelligent as any of your answers. I guess if you had some way to defend sola scriptura, you’d do it. Since you don’t, you just try to tear down what other people say.

 

[distracted]

This is about as articulate and intelligent as any of your answers. I guess if you had some way to defend sola scriptura, you’d do it. Since you don’t, you just try to tear down what other people say.

do ya kinda get the feeling that… a really good Catholic would not resort to such “articulate and inteligent” icons???

 

[mackbrislawn]

Are you saying that the Jews at the time of Christ did not know what their sacred inspired books were?

.

In a sense, yes, in that the exact limits of the Jewish canon were not determined at that time. Of course there was a core, there was the Torah, but a completely defined, closed canon, for the Jews had not occurred yet.

Christians were in a similar situration. Of course during apostolic times they certainly did not know what all their sacred inspired books were, nor did they know for sure what all books to include and which to exclude, for many years after that.

 

[mackbrislawn]

yea… i just finished reading a couple books about J. Wayne… VERY interesting. He was a workaholic but other than that, a great guy (voted the way i do, too )… It was amazing to see how much alike he and I are (were)… (that probably sounds like bragging but just making the point that… well, for one: i didn’t know he was so conservative, politically ) …

Good point… that’s where all the weird ideas come from - Protestants… who, because they have no certainty… no ultimate authority (pope/ magesterium)… speculate about just about everything… and muddle things up worse than ever… I used to think that some good has come from Protestantism… and i suppose that is true… but for the most part… people are just getting wilder and wilder… in their lifestyles, their beliefs… &, as you know, that kind of lawlessness can lead to Hell…

Anyway… i don’t see how anyone can believe that Jesus didn’t rise bodily.

If he did NOT… Where is (was) his body or what would be left of it ??? The Church collects relics like bones, etc… from those it believes died as a saint (or know that they did [martyrs])… For the Church not to have at least the actual bones of Christ himself…

the whole idea is absurd… and the more i think about it, the more it discredits Christianity in general, not just Catholicism…

But that’s the way the devil works…

Hmm…John must have voted the way I do, too.

Tony Blair is converting, and George W’s brother is Catholic. What do you know about George W himself?

I don’t know why anyone would be moved to deny the bodily resurrection. Maybe to be sensationalistic, I guess. To get attention.

 

[distracted]

In a sense, yes, in that the exact limits of the Jewish canon were not determined at that time. Of course there was a core, there was the Torah, but a completely defined, closed canon, for the Jews had not occurred yet.

Christians were in a similar situration. Of course during apostolic times they certainly did not know what all their sacred inspired books were, nor did they know for sure what all books to include and which to exclude, for many years after that.

well, Jesus never wrote a book… never (that anyone knows of) told anyone to write one…

He sent us out to preach… to baptize … and evangelize… the Bible is a helpful part of that… but was not meant to be the whole ball game, as it were…

[Oh… i think i was supposed to say that to the one you were responding to… not you… sorry…]

 

[distracted]

Hmm…John must have voted the way I do, too.

Tony Blair is converting, and George W’s brother is Catholic. What do you know about George W himself?

I don’t know why anyone would be moved to deny the bodily resurrection. Maybe to be sensationalistic, I guess. To get attention.

Tony Blair?? Hmm… i’ll have to get more info on that…

George W… well, you would think he would convert to Catholicism… he’s half-way there, sort of … with his pro-life stand and all…

OK… maybe he’s a 1/3 there… but anyway… Maybe he doesn’t want to convert before he leaves office… Remember what happend the last time we had a Catholic president??

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Hmm…John must have voted the way I do, too.

Tony Blair is converting, and George W’s brother is Catholic. What do you know about George W himself?

I don’t know why anyone would be moved to deny the bodily resurrection. Maybe to be sensationalistic, I guess. To get attention.

Protestantism today is in a giant mess, exactly because they have no Sacred Tradition and Magisterium as authorities to act as compasses. They are splitting apart over issues like ordaining homosexuals, sanctioning contraception and abortion, even fundamental issues like belief in God (see Bishop Spong as an example of the loony tune fringe). This is all traceable to their rejection of Christ’s Church through the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura really means - “do your own thing” and then find Bible verses to justify it. It is the serpent in the Garden, telling us that we can define good and evil ourselves - our own personal interpretation of the Bible is just as valid as the Church’s, founded by Jesus himself and refined through 2,000 years of scholarship and Tradition.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Tony Blair?? Hmm… i’ll have to get more info on that…

Tony Blair was confirmed Catholic just a few months after I was in '07.

 

[distracted]

Protestantism today is in a giant mess, exactly because they have no Sacred Tradition and Magisterium as authorities to act as compasses. They are splitting apart over issues like ordaining homosexuals, sanctioning contraception and abortion, even fundamental issues like belief in God (see Bishop Spong as an example of the loony tune fringe). This is all traceable to their rejection of Christ’s Church through the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura really means - “do your own thing” and then find Bible verses to justify it. It is the serpent in the Garden, telling us that we can define good and evil ourselves - our own personal interpretation of the Bible is just as valid as the Church’s, founded by Jesus himself and refined through 2,000 years of scholarship and Tradition.

i know you didn’t intend for this to be funny… but it made me laugh…

It is SO true… Sola Scriptura does mean (in practice, if not in theory) to do your own thing… and then focus on those scriputres that seem to justify what you are doing… OSAS is a result of that kind of thinking/doing… What a terrible belief… FOUND ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE!!

But then, since when did that stop them??

 

[justasking4]

well, Jesus never wrote a book… never (that anyone knows of) told anyone to write one…

He sent us out to preach… to baptize … and evangelize… the Bible is a helpful part of that… but was not meant to be the whole ball game, as it were…

[Oh… i think i was supposed to say that to the one you were responding to… not you… sorry…]

It is true Jesus never wrote a book. Does that have any impact on the Scriptures themselves in terms of being inspired-inerrant?

 

[PerryJ]

It is true Jesus never wrote a book. Does that have any impact on the Scriptures themselves in terms of being inspired-inerrant?

This is part of a post I placed on another thread. The Bible you read not only is missing several books and verses it also has more variants in the NT then words. Some Protestant scriptural exegesis have estimated variants in the hundreds of thousands. The NT has approximately 35,000 word in it. Two newly created variants would be the use of the term “highly favored” and “alone” in Romans. There are thousand upon thousands from the first Bible copies we have and few know of them. There are other variants that impact ones Faith if they use SS. The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dates from the Middle Ages (the copy was made in A.D. 1008). The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament dates from the fourth century A.D. About 5,000 different Greek manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament are known. Of these, no two are identical. This is why there are more variants in the NT then words by as much 11 times. Why is this important? It is not to shake ones faith. It is to show that one can not perform exegesis word by word or line by line. It is not possible as we do not have the original writings or words to perform this level of exegesis. In fact one of the individuals in this line of study Erhlman lost his faith because he was an Episcopalian that believed in SS. As he studied the Bible in depth he understood that his belief in the Bible only couldn’t be true. He unfortunately lost his faith. He did not lose his faith because of the Bible. He lost his faith because he believed in SS a man made theology.

I see you using this approach against the faith. Yet you can’t because you do not have the original words of Peter, Mark, Luke etc. SS is a fallacy because you do not have the original Bible that was inspired by God. You have 5,000 Bible fragments that do not agree. 5,000 Bible fragments pieced together in very different ways.

Again this does not impact my faith because my Bible is approved via the Church that created and defined it. You have no such authority. My faith is not based upon the Bible exclusively. It is based upon the Holy Spirit guiding the Church via Traditions and the Bible.

The only way for you to even try to do scriptural exegesis would be to use a Catholic Bible. Of course this would mean that you would have to submit to the authority of the one true Church.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4187424]This is part of a post I placed on another thread. The Bible you read not only is missing several books and verses it also has more variants in the NT then words. Some Protestant scriptural exegesis have estimated variants in the hundreds of thousands. The NT has approximately 35,000 word in it. Two newly created variants would be the use of the term “highly favored” and “alone” in Romans. There are thousand upon thousands from the first Bible copies we have and few know of them. There are other variants that impact ones Faith if they use SS. The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dates from the Middle Ages (the copy was made in A.D. 1008). The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament dates from the fourth century A.D. About 5,000 different Greek manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament are known. Of these, no two are identical. This is why there are more variants in the NT then words by as much 11 times. Why is this important? It is not to shake ones faith. It is to show that one can not perform exegesis word by word or line by line. It is not possible as we do not have the original writings or words to perform this level of exegesis. In fact one of the individuals in this line of study Erhlman lost his faith because he was an Episcopalian that believed in SS. As he studied the Bible in depth he understood that his belief in the Bible only couldn’t be true. He unfortunately lost his faith. He did not lose his faith because of the Bible. He lost his faith because he believed in SS a man made theology.

I see you using this approach against the faith. Yet you can’t because you do not have the original words of Peter, Mark, Luke etc.

What do you mean that i “o not have the original words of Peter, Mark, Luke etc”?

SS is a fallacy because you do not have the original Bible that was inspired by God. You have 5,000 Bible fragments that do not agree. 5,000 Bible fragments pieced together in very different ways.

You don’t have the original manuscripts either. Were in the same the boat on this one…

Again this does not impact my faith because my Bible is approved via the Church that created and defined it. You have no such authority. My faith is not based upon the Bible exclusively. It is based upon the Holy Spirit guiding the Church via Traditions and the Bible.

So you claim. I’m trying to find out exactly what these “Traditions” are. Is there a list of them somewhere?

The only way for you to even try to do scriptural exegesis would be to use a Catholic Bible. Of course this would mean that you would have to submit to the authority of the one true Church.

The Catholic Bible is also based on manuscripts just as mine is. Do you think your bible is based on the original manuscripts?

 

[PerryJ]

What do you mean that i “o not have the original words of Peter, Mark, Luke etc”?

You don’t have the original manuscripts either. Were in the same the boat on this one…

So you claim. I’m trying to find out exactly what these “Traditions” are. Is there a list of them somewhere?

The Catholic Bible is also based on manuscripts just as mine is. Do you think your bible is based on the original manuscripts?

You read; but, do not understand. I am not in the same boat. My faith is not based only on the Bible. Your is. You have no way of knowing what the true Bible should look like. SS is based upon interpreting a book created by a man. When you read “highly favored” in your Bible you are reading the bias of a man. This is the foundation of SS. That is why you have false doctrines.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Protestants cannot possibly believe in *Sola Scriptura *because they only believe what is in the Bible, and *Sola Scriptura *is not in the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4188086]You read; but, do not understand. I am not in the same boat.

Sure we are. No church possesses the original writings of the NT. Our Scriptures i.e. translations are based on manuscripts of various kinds.

My faith is not based only on the Bible

.
What is it based on then? If you don’t ground your faith in the Scriptures then you must base it on the teachings of men. There is no way around those who reject the Scriptures as the ground of their faith.

Your is. You have no way of knowing what the true Bible should look like. SS is based upon interpreting a book created by a man. When you read “highly favored” in your Bible you are reading the bias of a man. This is the foundation of SS. That is why you have false doctrines

.
Look up the phrase you are referring to in a Catholic Greek lexicon if there is one. What does it say these words of Mary mean?

 

[justasking4]

Protestants cannot possibly believe in *Sola Scriptura *because they only believe what is in the Bible, and *Sola Scriptura *is not in the Bible.

Having the phrase Sola Scriptura in the Bilbe is not necessary for it to be true. What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

 

[Kay_Cee]

JA4,

You ignored my post: #836. I would like a response, please.

This is my second request.

 

[PerryJ]

Sure we are. No church possesses the original writings of the NT. Our Scriptures i.e. translations are based on manuscripts of various kinds.

I have the teaching of Christ. Protected by Christ from error.

Which manuscript is yours based on? Which person translated your Bible? Who approved that it is correct? Did God tell you that your bible is the right one?

Mine is approved by God because it is approved by the one true Church.

.

What is it based on then? If you don’t ground your faith in the Scriptures then you must base it on the teachings of men. There is no way around those who reject the Scriptures as the ground of their faith.

I have the teaching of Christ. Protected by Christ from error.

This is your respone? You follow Luther and Calvin. Two men that intentionally changed the Bible out of fear. Is this what you believe in? Fear of the Lord to the point of total mortification? This is the face of your great theologians. Total fear and panic. Of course this was until they got in charge and started doing everything accused Rome of doing. Killing people, with hunts, politics and power. Great role models to change the Bible.
.

Look up the phrase you are referring to in a Catholic Greek lexicon if there is one. What does it say these words of Mary mean?

Mine say full of grace.

 

[PerryJ]

JA4,

You ignored my post: #836. I would like a response, please.

This is my second request.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

justasking

Having the phrase Sola Scriptura in the Bilbe is not necessary for it to be true. What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

Since you are the Protestant, I will let you define it in your own way and then tell me what passage in the Bible teaches it.

Charlie