Scripture Alone? Is Half the Story Sufficient?

[silverbullet]

The Cub:

Christsfriend,

PART I

I will apologize to you in advance, because I am going to give you the cold hard facts……unfortunately it is done in writing which is a very cold means of communication. I mean you no disrespect.

call2holiness.org/era-of-peace.html

1. The Bible is a Roman Catholic Book……we wrote it, plain and simple…even Martin Luther conceded that. The KJV is not the Bible. The Bible includes the Deutercanonicals which Luther deleted because they got in his way. Now he did this in spite of the many citations within scripture warning man not to add to or take away from the written Word of God.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ taught from the Septuagint which includes the Deuters. Are we to believe that Christ erred? Are we to believe that Martin Luther was wiser than Christ?

In addition, there a several references within the New Testament that refers to the Deuters. Rather than explain this, Protestants simply ignore the fact. That is to say, that the NT in the KJV has references to missing texts within the KJV.

See:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Once again, as the 1st writing above states, at the time that St. John was writing the Apocalypse (Revelation in English), the Church was on its 5th Pope. Clearly, the Church existed long before the Bible. Once again, the Bible was defined in the 4th century by Pope St. Damasus 1…and he gave charge to St. Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest to translate and compile the 1st Bible……the Latin Vulgate.

**I learn something new every time I get on here. Actually, in the theology course I am taking, though protestant, they understand the importance of tradition. After all, councils of men defined doctrines we now have such as the trinity, which no Christian, not even a fundamentalist would question. Granted protestants do not put the emphasis on tradition as does a Catholic, but they (the historical theologists) look at history, culture and tradition along side scripture.

In my theology class, which I am just beginning and has about 10 lessons to be taken over ten weeks, here is a quote from the Q/A part of session 3-just several questions:

1. Many would say that when christians do theology, they should do so objectively, using only the Bible as their source. Is this posible? Why or why not?
2. Historical theology seeks the contribution of past saints to formulate theology. Some people do not seek the contribution of past saints, thinking that Christians do not need tradition, since it has misled us so many times.

How is this attitude arrogant and fallacious?
How is this attitude wise and cautious?

Anyway, we are reading a historical theology book with this, but I would also love to know the name of a good Catholic one to read with it, since some of the things you mentioned are not in that particular book.

I also heard it was good to read something called ‘encyclicals’, in understanding the catholic point of view. Where would I find those?

Thanks.

Laura

**

 

[RPC717]

**I learn something new every time I get on here. Actually, in the theology course I am taking, though protestant, they understand the importance of tradition. **

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Protestants understand the importance of Tradition and history??? That’s a big joke. Protestants understand the importance of rewriting history in order to justify what they teach. Look at some of the garbage above - Jesus was teaching from the New Testament and it took the reformers to renew the Church to His way!!

I’ve actually been told by a bible thumper that the persecutions the early Christians (i.e., Catholics) had to undergo were not the product of Roman fear and hatred, but were prosecuted by the Church upon those Bible Christians who refused to acknowledge transsubstantiation. Not all protestant lies and distortions are that egregious, though. Be careful. They’re getting better at disguising their distortions, so if you’re going to waste time arguing with them you’ll have to really know your stuff, or at least where to find the real answers.

**I also heard it was good to read something called ‘encyclicals’, in understanding the catholic point of view. Where would I find those? **

These are papal writings on various issues - check it out: papalencyclicals.net/all.htm

 

[RPC717]

1. Many would say that when christians do theology, they should do so objectively, using only the Bible as their source. Is this posible? Why or why not?

This is impossible, because the bible is not one book. It is a collection of writings from different sources written at various times, and even in different literary styles. To know what the bible says means knowing its context, which is not contained in the bible itself. To acknowledge that the bible is the infallible word of God is not in any way the same thing as knowing its context. Besides, there exists many early works of Christian piety and history which are not in the bible. They weren’t included because the Church thought they didn’t belong there. The contents of the bible were determined by the Church to reflect the teachings of the Church. “Objective” interpretation of the bible often leads to a distortion of its intended meaning.

4. Historical theology seeks the contribution of past saints to formulate theology. Some people do not seek the contribution of past saints, thinking that Christians do not need tradition, since it has misled us so many times.

How is this attitude arrogant and fallacious?
How is this attitude wise and cautious?

Arrogant and fallacious - presumes that the early fathers did not understand what was taught to them - in the case of Christianity by Jesus Himself or by his apostles. This is a popular modern belief - that we are more “enlightened” and that we have our intelligence to truly understand history in it’s proper context, whereas those it was happening to didn’t have a clue. This is the same approach used by the modern media/liberal “elite,” for example, to rewrite and distort the history of the discovery of America and the Constitution itself.

Wise and cautious - some of the early Christians didn’t understand what was being taught to them, and distorted or changed teachings. They were deemed heretics and were dealt with in various ways - sometimes harshly, but usually by a proclamation by the Church defining or clarifying a doctrine. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in these proclamations and that they are true.

Anyway, we are reading a historical theology book with this, but I would also love to know the name of a good Catholic one to read with it, since some of the things you mentioned are not in that particular book.

Try The Faith of the Early Fathers by William A. Jurgens.or The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John R. Willis.

 

[Newman60]

Church Militant:

This is total bunk, without a historical leg to limp around on…

Well said!

We should add that the reference that one should neither add nor take away from refers only to the book it is in. It doesn’t refer to the entire collection that is the bible. But if it did the protestants since Martin Luther would certainly have to answer for taking several wonderful books out even though Luther himself acknowledged a debt to the “papists”(Catholics) for providing and preserving the bible.
We should also note that the bible was not widely available, would have been very expensive and the VAST majority of people couldn’t read until relatively recently - long after the invention of the printing press.
Our sola scriptura friend really needs to study history and get a grasp of the facts.
Let’s pray that he and others will be given the gift of faith and join us in God’s one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Newman60

 

[RPC717]

Newman60:

But if it did the protestants since Martin Luther would certainly have to answer for taking several wonderful books out even though Luther himself acknowledged a debt to the “papists”(Catholics) for providing and preserving the bible.

He actually said “Word of God,” which is different from the bible (though he probably meant the bible).:ehh:

 

[The_Cub]

Hi Laura…God bless you!

You will find several helpful links at the bottom of this:

call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm

I would suggest that you begin with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a teaching aid to be used in conjunction with the Deposit of Faith (Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Teaching of the Magisterium). It is arranged topically, and includes references to the source documents in the footnotes.

kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm

vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

The Magisterium is defined simply as the cardinals and bishops acting in union with the Pope (Luke 10:16). Having said that, all cardinals and bishops are subject to the Pope (Matthew 16:15-19). The Pope is infallible ONLY when he teaches ex cathedra on faith and morals. He is as human as you and I. The current Pope receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation daily…but under the above mentioned two citations when he speaks ex cathdra (literally from the chair [of St. Peter]) to the general Church on Faith and Morals, he is infallible…

How can that be? This should not be hard to comprehend. Were not the Apostles and their scribes (e.g. St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter, and his gospel is a summation of the teaching of St. Peter) infallible as they were lead by the Holy Spirit? Where does it say in Holy Scripture that the Holy Spirit died with St. John, and no longer works through men?

Now, encyclicals (as taught by Pope Pius XII) fall within ex cathedra teachings. There are several levels of pronouncements that the Pope issues, and are ranked by nature and effect. The encyclicals are among those at the top.

You will find them listed by Pope at the Holy See’s site:

Click on ‘Holy Father’

vatican.va/phome_en.htm

Now, I would suggest that you look for a specific topic within the Catechism first, and it will lead you to applicable Holy Scripture, Teachings of the Church (which include pronouncements of the Pope, Councils which the Pope subsequently approved), the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, etc.)

If I can help, please let me know.

God bless you and your family,

Cubbie

 

[Cubsfan]

Christ's friend:

Sola Scriptura did not come around in the reformation. It was a teaching that has been around since Christ just like all of the Reformed docrines. Luther and the other reformers just took the credit because they reformed it back into the Church of Christ.

So where in the Bible does Christ refer to Sola Scriptura?

 

[Tom]

The only references I didn’t see in the original, perhaps I just missed them were:
2 Peter chap 1:
[20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
[21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Chap 3:
14] Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.
[15] And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
[17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
[18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

1 Tim chap 3:
13] But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error.
[14] But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

In advance please excuse the horrible analogy… LOL
I have a physician’s desk reference, it a pretty good book on medicine, it is “profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct and to instruct”, so I guess after I read it I’ll be a Doctor?

 

[quaysman]

Please!

**Proverbs 26:4 or 26:5???

***Sorry “Christ-friend”, I just couldn’t resist… Hey, a friend o’ Jesus is a friend o’ mine…

We still love ya, brother…

Grace & Peace,

quaysman
*

 

[quaysman]

**You go, Cub!!! :bowdown:
**

 

[RPC717]

Tom:

I have a physician’s desk reference, it a pretty good book on medicine, it is “profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct and to instruct”, so I guess after I read it I’ll be a Doctor?

Not any more. Just ask any of my patients - you don’t need a PDR these days, just the internet.

This is actually a great analogy. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who come in and say “I looked this up on the internet and I have every one of these symptoms” - so they’re convinced that’s what they have, even if it’s a rare congenital illness that doesn’t run in their family. What they are totally lacking is context. They are like sola internetura clinicians who need someone who really knows what they’re talking about to tell them what their symptoms really mean and to tell them the truth. Instead of starting at a position of bringing their questions to me, we start at a position of having to first dispell their erroneous preconceived notions, then go with the truth.

 

[af3983]

I’m just finding this all so interesting. As for the arguement of what scripture defines and what the church defines, i feel that the church is defined through scripture and that scripture is defined through the church. Just like a teacher would define what a student is and a student would define what a teacher is. (not the best analogy) But without one, the other can not be. without the church to say what scripture is, then scripture becomes a book. Without scripture defining what the church is, the church becomes a group of people in a building. So it’s all hand in hand.

af3983

 

[elvisman]

The Catholic Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught that "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone) is insufficient.

The Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught “Sola Verbum Dei” (The Word of God Alone).

The very first line of the Gospel According to John:
"In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God".

---

JESUS is the Word. End of story.
NNNNNNNNNNNNEXT!!

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome

 

[Little_Mary]

elvisman:

The Catholic Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught that "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone) is insufficient.

The Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught **“Sola Verbum Dei” (The Word of God **Alone).

The very first line of the Gospel According to John:
"In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God".

---

JESUS is the Word. End of story.
NNNNNNNNNNNNEXT!!

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome

“…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”

 

[The_Cub]

“…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”

And the Blessed Virgin, with her fiat, gave flesh to the Word…the very flesh which was sacrificed upon the cross and by which were were saved.

Haily Mary! Pray for us to your Son.