Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

Where do we see direct quotes by Christ for the Deutro canonical books of the OT?

Off topic.

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

Yes. There was no agreement among them.

That may be true but the Jews certainly considered these books Scripture.

No. This is one of the reasons that, when Paul said he believed in angels and the resurrction, an arguement would ensue. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah.

So far there are no direct quotes of the DC in the NT.

There are, but that is another thread.

Secondly, the Jews did not consider the DC’s Scripture.

Especially the ones that rejected Christ! there is too much in there that is consistent with His doctrine.

Thirdly it took the Catholic church to elevate these DC"s to full canonical status 1500 years to do so at Trent.

This is a lie, about which you have been confronted before, and constitutes bearing false witness. Maybe everyone using this login should read what “justasking4” posted previously, so y’all don’t contradict yourselves?

the NT never quotes directly from these books but also the Catholic church itself for centuries did not recognize these books as fully canonical for centuries.

I am not sure a statement of such vast ignorance should be given any bandwidth at all, but if so, certainly not on this thread.

I must be dense. What teachings of Jesus not in Scripture are you referring to?

• I sure can’t argue with that. *

Jesus taught that the Scriptures point to Him, and it is in Him that life is found. That He founded a Church and expects that the Church He founded will resolve disputes between the brethren.

I would think even your leaders would reject these as a viable source for any true sayings of Christ. If not, then these sayings should be in your Bible since they would be Scripture.

The Catholic Church did not derive from scripture, but the other way around. Jesus formed the Church, then the Church produced the Scripture. That is why we are not limited to Scripture.

Something written 100-150 years after the events would be a problem.

Really? why is that? I guess we are really in trouble with the NT then!

**TO Ridler2012 -

You say Catholic is not in the Bible - neither is Trinity. Did you not see my post above to Crusador? I shall copy that last part for you:

the Catholic Church was first mentioned towards the end of the first century. It was St Ignatius of Antioch (35-107AD) in a letter to the Snyrnaeans Chap 8 “wherever the Bishop appears there let the people be, as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church.” I think it was in the year 95. Perhaps someone on this forum knows the exact year.

**

Actually the Catholic Church is in the Bible. Ignatius is making reference to the universal church written about in the book of Acts.

“the church throughout all” Acts 9:31 is a translation from the Greek “ekkleesía kath hólees”

Catholic Church .

 

[guanophore]

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.

How can you tell which writings are “Scripture”?

It is true the Scriptures alone are the ultimate rule of faith because they alone are inspired-inerrant. Take the words of Jesus for example. His words carry more weight than any teacher outside the Scriptures. If any teacher contradicts His teachings or teaches something not taught by Him it is not binding or is to be rejected.

How do you know they are “inspired-inerrant”?

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.

How can they be “ultimate” and leave that out? It is proof that one of the most essential doctrines is missing!

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

No, it just reinforces the point that Jesus established His Church, and gave the Apostles authority to govern that Body. He did not commission a book to do it.

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…

No, because the Catholic church is based on Jesus, not the NT. Therefore, the fact that we don’t have original mss does not diminish our faith, as it does those whose faith is built on the book.

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

That’s quite a goose chase, I bet!

Sacred Tradition is a lifestyle and a way of looking at things (world view). It is called in the book of Acts “The Way”. It does not reduce to a “list” at all.

Whether you realize it or not, your faith is dependent upon Sacred Tradition.

Do you think your bible is based on the original manuscripts?

YES. but the Teachings are based on Jesus, long before the manuscripts were written.

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.

Such a statement reflects a world view that does not believe Jesus is alive and well, Head of His church, and able to build and preserve His Church. It denies the HS of God, whom Jesus sent to remain with us until the end of the age, to guide us into all truth. One has to wonder if a person writing this even believes there is a Holy Spirit.

Catholic faith is 100% reflected in the NT, because the NT was written by Catholics, for Catholics. That is why there is no thing in the NT that contradicts the Catholic faith.

However, Jesus is the “ground” of our faith.

In a sense yes. All human beings are fallible including popes, councils etc

It is amazing what God can do with fallible humans, isn;t it!?

No you should not reject this since I have demonstrated that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. Where we differ is what is the implications of this.

You have done nothing of the kind! You have postulated this, based on what was handed down by the Catholic Church. So , without using the Catholic Church, you now need to prove that the 1. Which books constitute scripture
2. That they are inspired-inerrant.

Sola Scriptura vs Catholic teachings are so different because it rejects the Scriptures as being the supreme authority in matters of faith and doctrine.

Indeed!

I already shown you that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant.

No, you have not. YOu have declared them to be so, but you have shown nothing to determine how you came to this conclusion.

Your burden is to show another inspired-inerrant authority.

No. The fact that something is inspired-inerrant does not make it able to wield authority, which requires intellect and will. Regardless it is the person wielding the scripture who is the “authority”, not the scriptures themselves. You are assigning a role to scripture that it was never meant to fill.

No. All beliefs you accept from your church are from fallible men who can and have erred.

This is a sweeping denial of the life work of Christ.
.

No it is about Catholicism since it is the catholic church that attacks the Scriptures as not being sufficient.

On the contrary, if you read what the Catholic Church teaches, you will find that the Catholic Church has DEFINED the sufficiency of the scriptures. You can find this in the library here.

That’s why part of this discussion must include the basis of authority for the Catholic church. Its not just the Scriptures on trial but also the Catholic church and its claims.

No, ja4, you are trying to twist the arguement. Look at the thread topic again. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It has to do with the fact that Sola Scripurists use a man - made extrabiblical doctrine, which you admitted you acquired by “study”. This practice demonstrates that Scripture cannot be the ultimate authority, since it is based on something outside itself.

 

[PerryJ]

I have never seen St Luther or St Calvin ever charged with murder. I am aware that there was an inqusition of the Catholic church through the centuries that did result in many being tortured and put to death.

You really should read some history.

The Reformation Diarmaid MacCulloch – Page 238
“Calvin was as clear as the Roman Catholic inquisition in Lyons or papal Antichrist in Rome that Servetus must die although Calvin would have preferred a more merciful summary method of execution; he did not oppose the burning on Oct 27, 1553… To show mercy would be to show weakness and that would encourage his enemies.”

Page 239 – “Calvin gleefully seized on this attempted coup d etat. Four of his chief opponents were beheaded and their defeat, Calvin’s triumph, was represented as Gods triumph. Over the severed victim’s head was coldly in scribed.
For having fallen into misfortune, of loving man more than God, Claude de Geneva has his head nailed up in this place.” (I did not post the details; however, this act of desecration is much worse than what I have posted)

The Concise History of the Catholic Church Thomas Bokenkotter – Page 229
“Crossing swords with the Pope of Geneva was a dangerous pastime and the vanquished often paid for it dearly. Jacques Gruett…who bitterly resented the life style imposed by Calvin… Gruett was arrested, tortured in the manner of his age, and when evidence was found convicting him of blasphemy beheaded.”

229 “Michael Servetus…at the behest of Calvin was arrested and after trial burned at the stake”

The Life and Times of John Calvin – Paul Henry Emil & Henry Stebbing – Page 224
“Contemplating as we are the execution of Servetus, … whether Calvin ever really thought much about the death of that unhappy man? If he did not absolutely promote it, he certainly considered it just and necessary” (The details of Servetus death are cold. His papers were strapped to his chest when he was burned at the stake as I stated in my previous post.)

Life of John Calvin Thomas Henry Dyer– Page 329
“Calvin’s proceedings were attributed by his opponents to feeling of personal hatred and a desire of shedding their blood…a recent biographer of Calvin has rested one of his main arguments against the truth of this charge on the assertion that such motives were not imputed to Calvin, even by the Libertines themselves. But this author must have overlooked a passage in Calvins own letter, where we find it stated that such an intention had been ascribed to him: nay Calvin was even accused of standing by while prisoners were tortured and he urged the severest measures”

Witchcraft in the Southwest Marc Simmons – Page 8
“Those inquisitions carried out by John Calvin in 1545 resulted in 31 executions for witchcraft in the city of Geneva.”

Witch Hunting in the Southwest – Eric Midelfort Page 73
“Geneva in the years 1542 – 1545 some 40 person were found guilty of witchcraft and executed.”

History of Political Ideas Eric Voegelin, Athanasios Moulakis, David Walsh, David L. Morse – Page 276 “John Calvin committed 58 executions and 76 banishments”

This is about 6 percent of the Geneva population that ranged from 13,000 to 15,000 people.

 

[ncgolf]

The Catholic Church did not derive from scripture, but the other way around. Jesus formed the Church, then the Church produced the Scripture. That is why we are not limited to Scripture.

Bingo. I wonder how Sola’s handle the ~300 years between Jesus and the official Canon … how could the Church have survived much less thrived without a Bible.:bigyikes: … hmm I wonder how they did it

 

[PerryJ]

I have never seen St Luther or St Calvin ever charged with murder. I am aware that there was an inqusition of the Catholic church through the centuries that did result in many being tortured and put to death.

How about some Luther history.

The Reformation Diarmaid MacCulloch – Page 238
“He grimly and categorically endorsed the revenge meted out by God’s magistrates on Earth…as the Habsburg armies advanced north…he published his tract with a furious appendix, entitled “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The text of Romans 13:1 sounded a tocsin throughout his biting prose and it was given a murderous edge that did not appear in Paul’s original text “Let everyone who can. Smite slay and stab secretly or openly remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…the mayor of Zwickau…wrote that he could not regard the pamphlet as a theological work, calling as it did “for private and public murder of the peasants. Is the devil and those who do this, to be our Lord God.”

Page 666 – “Luther’s writing of 1543 is a blueprint for the Nazi’s Kristallnacht of 1938. It recommends that in retaliation for Jewish obstinacy, synagogues should be burned, Jewish Literature confiscated, Jewish teaching forbidden, and vengeance taken for the killing of Christ”

The Catholic Church History – Keith D. Lewis Page 87
Against the robbing and murdering hordes of the peasants in which (Luther) he suggested that the peasants be “cut down like dogs” Luther support of the civil authorities to put down religious dissent is something that would become common place”

If I recall correctly 100,000 peasant were killed or executed in these wars.

Do you want me to post about his witch hunts etc? Or is this enough for you?

Notice how he changed scripture to support these killings. Kinda like him changing Romans to faith “alone” isn’t it.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4192076]
The Catholic Church did not derive from scripture, but the other way around. Jesus formed the Church, then the Church produced the Scripture. That is why we are not limited to Scripture.

You’re confused again. We already know the OT predates the NT church. Secondly, Jesus was teaching the Word of God orally which would be consider inspired-inerrant.

 

[distracted]

Bingo. I wonder how Sola’s handle the ~300 years between Jesus and the official Canon … how could the Church have survived much less thrived without a Bible.:bigyikes: … hmm I wonder how they did it

he would probably just say that it didn’t survive… that it went into apostacy…

those protestants… they have an “answer” for everything…

(No, not all of them… Some of them care about truth. Thank God for those ones… )

 

[distracted]

How about some Luther history.

The Reformation Diarmaid MacCulloch – Page 238
“He grimly and categorically endorsed the revenge meted out by God’s magistrates on Earth…as the Habsburg armies advanced north…he published his tract with a furious appendix, entitled “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The text of Romans 13:1 sounded a tocsin throughout his biting prose and it was given a murderous edge that did not appear in Paul’s original text “Let everyone who can. Smite slay and stab secretly or openly remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…the mayor of Zwickau…wrote that he could not regard the pamphlet as a theological work, calling as it did “for private and public murder of the peasants. Is the devil and those who do this, to be our Lord God.”

Page 666 – “Luther’s writing of 1543 is a blueprint for the Nazi’s Kristallnacht of 1938. It recommends that in retaliation for Jewish obstinacy, synagogues should be burned, Jewish Literature confiscated, Jewish teaching forbidden, and vengeance taken for the killing of Christ”

The Catholic Church History – Keith D. Lewis Page 87
Against the robbing and murdering hordes of the peasants in which (Luther) he suggested that the peasants be “cut down like dogs” Luther support of the civil authorities to put down religious dissent is something that would become common place”

If I recall correctly 100,000 peasant were killed or executed in these wars.

Do you want me to post about his witch hunts etc? Or is this enough for you?

Notice how he changed scripture to support these killings. Kinda like him changing Romans to faith “alone” isn’t it.

thank you!! :clapping:

you said what i would have said only in more detail… (and i am kinda tired… so i am glad you wrote it )

 

[guanophore]

You’re confused again. We already know the OT predates the NT church. Secondly, Jesus was teaching the Word of God orally which would be consider inspired-inerrant.

No, there was not established OT prior to the Church. There were collections, referred to as Law, Prophets, Psalms, and Writings. Not all the factions agreed on which ones were scriptures. We defined the OT from the books that Jesus and the Apostles’ used. THe Christian collection therefore differs from that created later by the Jews, because they left out books that made reference to Jesus and His teachings.

Yes, Jesus was teaching orally, and His teaching is considered inspired and inerrant,and this is what we have received from the Apostles. It is by that inspired-inerrant source that we determine which books belong in the canon.

how do you figure that out?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4193718]No, there was not established OT prior to the Church. There were collections, referred to as Law, Prophets, Psalms, and Writings. Not all the factions agreed on which ones were scriptures. We defined the OT from the books that Jesus and the Apostles’ used. THe Christian collection therefore differs from that created later by the Jews, because they left out books that made reference to Jesus and His teachings.

Were these OT writings referred to as Scripture in the time of Christ?

justasking4
Yes, Jesus was teaching orally, and His teaching is considered inspired and inerrant,and this is what we have received from the Apostles. It is by that inspired-inerrant source that we determine which books belong in the canon.
guanophore
how do you figure that out?

Its called studying the issues and drawing conclusions.

 

[po18guy]

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 is “trinity”? Not there. Where are the traditions that Paul admonished you to keep? Not there. There are many such “not there” teachings. And, you are missing all of them if you insist on using the incomplete bible. But, what’s a good Protestant boy to do? Pray for the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Open your heart. Open your mind. Convert. You will be immensely happier and will no longer persist in confusion.

No doubt there have been some who have missinterpreted the Scriptures incorrectly but that does not mean that the principle of Sola Scriptura is wrong.

YES It certainly is wrong! You cannot believe both the bible and “sola scriptura”, as the bible itself never teaches that. It teaches the opposite. No wonder you are always confused.

In my prayers again…

 

[Marian_Devotee]

Hi justasking4,

I have a question for you: Hypothetically, what would you do if the minister or fellow parishioners at your church decided to explore the Catholic Church, entered RCIA, and converted to Catholicism? Would you be glad for them?

The reason I ask is that my fellow Catholics on this board do a very good job of answering your doubts about the Faith, (and I hope we can do it in a non-derogatory manner) but you still aren’t satisfied with the answers.

What I’m wondering is what it would take for you to see why we believe the things we believe. Maybe you can look on Jimmy Akin’s or Scott Hahn’s website, or phone in to a Catholic Radio show. Here is Jimmy’s bio: catholic.com/media/akin.asp

Who knows? Maybe justasking4 will one day be another staunch defender of the Catholic Faith!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JustAsking

Jesus did not say, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my bible, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Jesus built a Church, and the Church built the New Testament, and it took four centuries to do so. What happened to all the Christians during the four centuries who did not have a complete bible to go by? They went by the teaching authority of the Church.

Why in heaven’s name do Protestants never get this? Do they never read the history of early Christianity?

 

[po18guy]

You’re confused again. We already know the OT predates the NT church. Secondly, Jesus was teaching the Word of God orally which would be consider inspired-inerrant.

And…and…He passed it on to the Twelve and to Paul, who passed it on. A tiny portion of it is all you get in the bible. Catholics and Orthodox have it all. You’ve been cheated.

 

[guanophore]

Were these OT writings referred to as Scripture in the time of Christ?

Those that He considered Scripture He referred to as such, which is how we know He considered the Septuagint Scripture. Various other factions considered different collections. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah as Scripture.

Its called studying the issues and drawing conclusions.

So, basically what you are saying is that you have determined what books belong in the Bible because you studied, and drew your own conclusions?

Can you please explain why the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas are not included?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, JA4 hasn’t responded to me, but I would like to add some comments.

So far, the “proof” I’ve seen him give for his statement that scripture is the ***sole ***rule of faith has been some fallacies:

*Begging the question. *He gave me some Bible verses, but his interpretation assumed his premise that scripture is the sole rule of faith. Nothing in the verses supported it.

*Argumentum ad ignorantium. *The notion that if I can’t disprove his statement that scripture is the sole rule of faith, it must be true.

*Non sequitur. *An incomplete syllogism:
Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
Therefore, only scripture is inspired and inerrant.

I don’t recall any argument besides these three fallacies. I don’t see how they constitute proof. If JA4 has some actual proof, I would like to see it.

 

[PerryJ]

You’re confused again. We already know the OT predates the NT church. Secondly, Jesus was teaching the Word of God orally which would be consider inspired-inerrant.

“You’re confused again. We already know the OT predates the NT church” ???

Jesus was teaching the Word of God and anything not written down would be Tradition.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

Its called studying the issues and drawing conclusions.

To be more exact, it’s called personal interpretation. :tsktsk:

 

[PerryJ]

To be more exact, it’s called personal interpretation. :tsktsk:

Your quote at the bottom of your post was very fitting:thumbsup:

 

[IronHammer]

To sum things up before this threads is closed to it’s excessive weight…

Sola Scriptura is a position based on the belief (read ‘faith’) that sacred scripture is the only tangible Word of God we have so it must be our only rule of faith. As a Protestant friend of mine once said, “What else this there?”

Scripture + Tradition is a position based on the belief (faith) that Apostolic Tradition, beginning with Peter himself, has handed down through the centuries everything that Christ wants us to know. This includes the sacred scriptures, the Teaching Authority given to the Apostles and finally, Traditions passed on to the Apostles that were not explicitly (but implicitly) taught by scripture. Again, all of this is a matter of faith, which is a no better position than the Sola Scritpurists.

Either way, both positions are founded purely on faith. From our modern standpoint there is no way to definitively prove either doctrine using sources outside the bible itself (which cannot be used as a proof because it’s part of the argument).

However, I believe there is a key flaw in the position of the Sola Scripturists that lends much less weight to their argument – they have no Authority. Authority is indispensible to understand the testimony of scripture. Sola Scripturists make the impossible claim that the bible, itself, is the authority. This would be similar to stating that the Constitution is, itself, the authority in the secular United States. Yet it requires an Authority, the Supreme Court, to understand how to apply it to our lives. Without the Supreme Court, there would be anarchy in the land (sounds quite similar to non-catholic christianity). As quanaphore has said, who is blue in the face from pointing it out so many times, authority is a human trait. The scriptures have no authority in themselves!

So, after reading nearly 1,000 posts of this entire thread, I have confirmed by absolute faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church and I and my family will follow her and the blessed Mother to the ends of the earth.