Scripture Only?

[bill210]

It behooves me to understand how people get the idea that their faith must be based on the Bible only when if this is true then the first Christians must have all known how to read and from the Torah only they somehow understood the fullness of the faith. For the New Testament was yet unwritten and the number of copies of any book were extremely limited. The Bible itself discloses that the early Christians learned their faith by hearing as well as by being taught the scriptures and this amounts to Tradition and Scripture both guided by the Apostolic Teaching. In modern terms that’s Tradition, Scripture and Magisterial teaching as a unity. And that is what you have in the Catholic Church which originated by Jesus and through an unbroken line of apostolic succession stands in the face of the world today! Why do people struggle to sever the ties with the Bride of Christ as St. Paul calls the Catholic Church? I suppose it may be like a teen seeking freedom only to later discover that slavery comes from rebellion and freedom from humility. He then comes home at last.

 

[jblake]

bill210;:

Why do people struggle to sever the ties with the Bride of Christ as St. Paul calls the Catholic Church?

a) Take the “Man from Mars” approach in studying the Bible;

b) Study the Bible after it has been translated into a language that uses evidential grammar;

c) Study the Bible in a language that tests the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis;

Using any of those three approaches, nothing that might have previously been construed as “self-evident” is that way.

xan

jonathon

 

[Newbie2]

Methinks it’s not a simple matter of why individuals reject the RCC and her teachings.

Which came first, the rejection of the RCC or the acceptance of Sola Scriptura?

 

[DonnyB]

a) Take the “Man from Mars” approach in studying the Bible;

b) Study the Bible after it has been translated into a language that uses evidential grammar;

c) Study the Bible in a language that tests the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis;

Using any of those three approaches, nothing that might have previously been construed as “self-evident” is that way.

xan

jonathon

You’re getting into some very deep waters there.
Could you expound on it more?
I’m interested in what you are saying.

The differences in language seem self-evident as a reason why it took 1500 years time (Protestants) from Christ for people to suddenly start misinterpreting the Bible so dramatically.
Even the Greek Orthodox maintain their understanding of the Sacraments. Apparently 1000 years was not enough removal from Biblical events to misunderstand them as badly as Calvin and Luther did after 1500 years. (and later MANY more)
Certainly Sapir-Whorf could have saved Calvin?

Also, I only barely know what you are talking about with the “Man on Mars” thing.

Pardon me for being no good at this. I’ve never pondered Protestantism/Modern American Fundamentalism very much in the past. My sister was recently swept up by a hoard of ignorant fundamentalists.
I’m unable to help her thus far.
I’ve mainly pondered the commonality among Christians until this happened.
There seems to be some sort of witches brew of American Consumerism/Entertainment mixed with Calvinist/Baptist approach at work here that sucks away the Catholics of lesser knowledge. (her ADD like disposition in Mass doesn’t seem to have helped this situation)

I still don’t know how the machine works fully. I’m kind of stuck on how the Fundamentalists get around the facts of history. As to my sister, she just doesn’t know them. But others among them must know right???

I need help. I’m afraid that she has no Invincible Ignorance defense for her actions. Also, I’m the Godfather of her daughter. I’m afraid that she will have severely damaged her faith if/when she ever makes it back to Catholicism.
They have her believing all kinds of dangerous stuff and my Goddaughter is going to see it all as a joke when she gets older. She is very smart.

I looked at the Soteriology workbook that they link to online from her church’s website and the whole thing is the 5 Points of Calvinism (TULIP) and it tries to make the traditional Christian beliefs (pre 1500s) look false.

In Christ,
DB

 

[epostle]

Which came first, the rejection of the RCC or the acceptance of Sola Scriptura?

Me thinks Judaism was rejected first. We are no longer under the law (as we are constantly reminded), and ancient Judaic/Hebrew laws and rituals have been fulfilled in Christ. But the oral teaching, as practiced by Jewish Tradition, was just as important as the written word. Jesus follows this Tradition when He said, “Do as they say, but not as they do.” (Matthew 23:3) He did not say, “Do as they read to you”. The vehicle of God’s Divine Revelation in the tradition of oral teaching is different from the vehicle of the written word, but not inferior and not contradictory. They compliment each other. That is the way it was, and the MEANS that God reveals Himself has nothing to do with laws and rituals. That means did not suddenly cease to exist. Jesus commanded the Gospel be preached, not read.

The reformers sent the vehicle of tradition to the scrap yard and invented a new religion, unrecognizable to any early Christian. Martin Luther hated the Jews, and abolished anything that resembled our Jewish heritage, including the authority of Tradition.

Joel 1:3 Tell ye of this to your children, and let your children **tell **their children, and their children **to another generation. **

 

[nsper7]

Pardon me for being no good at this. I’ve never pondered Protestantism/Modern American Fundamentalism very much in the past. My sister was recently swept up by a hoard of ignorant fundamentalists.
I’m unable to help her thus far.
I’ve mainly pondered the commonality among Christians until this happened.
There seems to be some sort of witches brew of American Consumerism/Entertainment mixed with Calvinist/Baptist approach at work here that sucks away the Catholics of lesser knowledge. (her ADD like disposition in Mass doesn’t seem to have helped this situation)

I’m sorry to hear about your sister getting pulled into that kind of fundamentalism. I hope you understand that not all ‘Protestants’ (I am using this to mean Non-Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox) are as ignorant of Scripture or as consumerist as some fundamentalists. Certainly, ignorant (as in, ignorant of Scripture, history, interpretive methods, etc.) fundamentalists are the most threatening in some cases because what they lack in knowledge, they more than make up for in sheer dogmatism and fear-mongering and they’ll use that to ‘beat down’ any challenge to their arguments (i.e. threats of Hell, general loudness, accusations of apostasy/heresy, etc.).

If you don’t mind my asking, what was it that attracted your sister to this group?

They have her believing all kinds of dangerous stuff and my Goddaughter is going to see it all as a joke when she gets older. She is very smart.

What kind of dangerous stuff do they have her believing? Maybe I can try to address it from a non-Roman Catholic perspective. I have had my share of run-ins with fundamentalists and I know how damaging they can be.

 

[DonnyB]

The church is Non-Denominational Evangelical.
I think Calvin is dangerous, so maybe it is just perspective as to dangerous.
In general, I don’t know if the salvation of her family is in jeopardy, but I know this is a backwards step and what will be handed down to her descendents is inferior.

Mostly it seems to be Calvin without Infant Baptism.

1. TULIP & Once Saved/Always saved
2. I’m pretty sure they teach symbolic Baptism.
3. Faith Alone
4. Scripture Alone
5. Almost **immediate acceptance **of anything that pops into head during prayer as private revelation.

• This seems to be the scariest because she goes around saying God told me to do this and that and some of it appears unwise at times.

1. Anti-Catholicism
2. Reading the Bible through some sort of Prizm. i.e. - If I point out something in the Gospel such as “good works” or Jesus answering the question about Good Works with “Follow the Commandments” she just ignores it and waits to get back with her Fundamentalist friends.
3. **Ignorance of historical facts **when the contradict her point of view. - Such as what the Church Father’s wrote. Timelines of Christianity, etc.

She handed out those million dollar bills with the stuff about Adultery and going to Hell etc. to little kids on Halloween.
Aside from misinterpreting the Gospel passage, (Jesus was raising the standard of behavior on the Commandments, not formulating a massive gotcha argument for Faith Alone)
it seemed to be almost vulgar in infringing on parental rights. Like a sneak attack against there own ideas for the children’s faith formation. (It’s a pretty religious area we live in.)

Anyway here is the link to the church.
stonebriar.org
It isn’t like she joined the Mormons or something that the RCC defines as outside Christianity.
I really think she may come to her senses someday.
I’m just not sure I can do it anymore as far as trying to help.
She won’t listen to anything, won’t read anything, & she can’t really discuss scripture in person with a non-evangelical who knows anything.

DB

 

[nsper7]

I think Calvin is dangerous, so maybe it is just perspective as to dangerous.

For me, Calvin, like most theologians/apologists/etc., is a mixed bag. I’ve never actually read Calvin’s works, but the one person I dealt with who seemed to be ardently Calvininistic did not leave me with a good impression.

1. TULIP & Once Saved/Always saved

I do not know that much about TULIP; however, OSAS I find problematic. Personally, I believe in ‘Free Grace’ theology (here is an explanation of it from the Grace Evangelical Society: WHAT IS “FREE GRACE” THEOLOGY?), or the idea, simplistically, of “Salvation through faith/belief in Christ alone”. OSAS, in theory, could be correct, but I do not see a Scriptural defense for someone truly rejecting their faith, yet still remaining in Salvation.

1. I’m pretty sure they teach symbolic Baptism.

Personally, my understanding is pretty basic, I tend to agree with the idea of a ‘right Baptism’ being intention, water and a Trinitarian formula. How baptism relates to Salvation is touchy, but I would ask this serious question of anyone who denies baptism’s importance: If one Believes Christ and the Scriptures and are able to be Baptized, why would they not want to be?

Pesonally, I like the Anglican view (as quoted from the ‘Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion’):

BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I’d say baptism is more than a symbol and if they are trying to say that Baptism is unnecessary for Salvation, I personally would say that’s irrelevant: If you are a Believer in and have faith in Jesus as your Savior, why not confirm that faith through baptism?

Personally, and I hope you don’t mind my meanderings, there was about a year of downtime between becoming a Believer and getting Baptized. I was afraid that I would die without getting baptized that baptism would be necessary for Salvation and I’d end up in Hell. The reason I did not get baptized earlier was because I was afraid of family response and this left me feeling afraid that I had rejected Salvation. Finally, when I was baptized, I was afraid I wasn’t fully immersed or that it didn’t ‘count’ as a baptism or that I wasn’t Saved to begin with. Granted, I suffer from OCD (Scrupulosity) and so it doesn’t help things.

1. Faith Alone

How exactly are they defining faith and what are they having faith in? (Not trying to sound flippant, but people define ‘faith’ differently and may have faith in different things and call it a ‘Christian’ faith).

1. Scripture Alone

I believe Sola Scriptura to be a right theology, but it’s more nuanced than many Protestants make it out to be. Read J. P. Holding’s article Sola Scriptura Extremis, I think it’s very informative on this issue.

1. Almost immediate acceptance of anything that pops into head during prayer as private revelation.

• This seems to be the scariest because she goes around saying God told me to do this and that and some of it appears unwise at times.

That is a scary and dangerous way of trying to interpret Scripture (I know from personal experience…with OCD, relying on thoughts popping into my head was terrible). I think St. Peter put it best:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

-2 Peter 1:20

We will all have our private/personal interpretations of Scripture, but to claim prophetic knowledge (God told me…) and on such a subjective basis (‘a thought popping into the head’) is dangerous and un-Scriptural. I do belive God certainly could work through a person’s thought processes, but it must be tested (1 John 4:1) to see if this is truly divine revelation (how to test is a different question). It sounds like your sister is not ‘testing the spirits’ if she is accepting things ‘almost immediately’.

((cont’d))

 

[nsper7]

1. Anti-Catholicism

I assume by Anti-Catholic you mean in a pathological and irrational sense (i.e. a fervent belief that Roman Catholicism is theologically/doctrinally wrong mixed with ignorance/misunderstanding of RC doctrine or apologetics). If that is the case, it is quite disturbing. First, they are cutting themselves off from a branch of Christianity for no apparent reason (if they are ignorant of RC doctrine and apologetics, how can they say they’re against it?). Second, if they are being irrational/pathological in this area, it makes sense that they’re doing this in other areas of theology/faith as well.

1. Reading the Bible through some sort of Prizm. i.e. - If I point out something in the Gospel such as “good works” or Jesus answering the question about Good Works with “Follow the Commandments” she just ignores it and waits to get back with her Fundamentalist friends.

Obviously, I’d have to know more about their ‘Prizm’ before I can comment on whether I agree with it or not; however, the idea of basing so much of one’s faith on what friends say or believe seems dangerous and un-Scriptural. After all, even if this group is 100% ‘correct’ (whatever that means), what if these friends of hers change their beliefs? Is she suddenly going to go along simply because she has based her faith on their beliefs? Also, if she makes new friends with different beliefs, will she be pulled in by them simply because she wants to follow the faith of her friends? Basing too much of one’s faith on what friends (no matter how well-meaning or ‘correct’ they are) say or believe is dangerous.

As St. Peter puts it:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

-1 Peter 3:15

If she is constantly turning to her friends like you are saying/implying she is, does she really know why she believes what she claims to believe?

1. Ignorance of historical facts when the contradict her point of view. - Such as what the Church Father’s wrote. Timelines of Christianity, etc.

This is not good either. It goes back to the issue of ‘Scripture Alone’. In my personal opinion, to view Scripture without the guides of history, context (textual and historical), previous interpretations and the like seems foolish and leads to misinterpretation. Sola Scriptura should not be used as an excuse for ignorance or laziness in Scriptural study and certainly does not allow someone to try and put their own interpretations on a pedestal.

Looking at this, what disturbs me the most are 5, 6 (which I assume, at least partially, stems from 8), 7 (especially the looking to friends for reasons for faith or accepting faith merely because her friends have pulled her into it) and 8. They seem un-Scriptural and I think can only lead to (further) trouble.​

I hope this is helpful and I hope you don’t think all Protestants are ignorant or crazed fundamentalists. I admit my ideas could be (and, probably to some degree are) wrong (I hope not and I strive to learn the truth). For me, Sola Scriptura (as a theology/doctrine) guarantees that Scripture is authoritative, but not my interpretations of Scripture.

I hope everything turns out well for your sister and I hope my comments have been helpful. Also, sorry if there are any typos, but I am extremely tired at the moment.

 

[jblake]

Could you expound on it more?
I’m interested in what you are saying.

This is a gross oversimplification:

• Evidential grammars require that the sentence indicate the evidence that what they said is based upon. For example: I saw john steal the apple. I heard John chewing something, then saw the apple was missing.
• Sapir–Whorf hypothesis;
  The theory is that how one behaves is predicated upon the vocabulary that one has. In a language that tests this hypothesis, vocabulary is usually restricted along one or more dimensions. As a result, terms that might be theologically significant, may not be expressible in the language, or are expressed in such a manner so as to imply something that is very different from the original language.

why it took 1500 years time (Protestants) from Christ for people to suddenly start misinterpreting the Bible so dramatically.

All Calvinism does, is systematically bring together a number of ideas that had been floating around since at least 100 AD. I’m pretty sure that the The Early Church Fathers has a paragraph or two to refute each the theological ideas that Calvin had. Nothing to systemically refute it, though.

The challenge is refuting Calvin from the perspective of Sola Scriptura Extremis.

Certainly Sapir-Whorf could have saved Calvin?

Sapir-Whorf explains why such discrepancies in understanding something are guaranteed to occur.

I only barely know what you are talking about with the “Man on Mars” thing.

If nobody told you that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, there is no way to deduce from the Bible that that was the case, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the successor in interest of his title and position.

Now read through the entire Bible, as if you had not only never heard of it before, but did not know anybody who had heard of it. And remove all of your socio-economic-cultural conditioning that is related to what the Bible “means”, from your comprehension of what is says.

I’m unable to help her thus far.

For starters.

• Forget everything you think you know about Protestant Christianity. It won’t apply to the specific church she attends;
• Do not attack her religious beliefs or practices. All that does is confirm that she is right, and you are wrong. (Probably “dead wrong”, in her opinion.);
• Ask her to explain the different aspects of the theology to you, and how they fit in with the rest of what she believes. Then ask her how those beliefs translate into her practice.
  (Note:this is a double edged sword. Sometimes it pushes people much further in than they intended. Other times it pulls them out so they won’t go anywhere near anything that even remotely resembles what they were practicing. )
• Pray for her every day;
• Be there for her;

There seems to be some sort of witches brew of American Consumerism/Entertainment mixed

It is a mega-church. What else can you expect from it?
(Think McDonald’s, except applied totheology.)

The only thing I didn’t see when I looked at the website was an endorsement of The Purpose Filled Life, or The Alpha Course.

the facts of history. … But others among them must know right???

I wouldn’t count on it. The history of Orthodox, Oriental, or Catholic Christianity is irrelevant to them.

I’m the Godfather of her daughter.

You have been given a deep spiritual responsibility, and now have to carry it out, without alienating the parents of your God Child, or your God Child, and remain true to your spiritual beliefs.

I looked at the Soteriology workbook that they link to online from her church’s website and the whole thing is the

I’m not sure what you linked to, but the site conforms to “standard american mega church theology”.

I’m surprised that they know to quote Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. OTOH, they only do so when it suits them.

xan

jonathon

 

[bogeydogg]

As a person leaving the schismatic churches and coming into the RCC I can tell you that the one thing most appealing about them is that preach an I’m OK you’re OK theology. While it may sound silly, there are some who view any form of orthodoxy as very dry and dead and find the shallow glitzy noisy glamorous church experience to be really appealing. However, unfortunately, very often those who fall into such groups burn out after a while and fall away from any church at all. I have battled this many times myself. There is reason why the LDS and JW communities find their most fertile ground among “back-slid” protestants, it’s because they attend church but don’t get much, do church but don’t learn much, fellowship at church, but question much, and very often these churches are completely independent from any sort of oversight whatsoever. For this reason after a while going to church becomes like eating ‘Redi-Whip’, it may be to taste and kind of funny but no sustenance and eventually you just end up with a belly ache, (I ate a whole can of the stuff on a bet one time… whew!).

Pray for her and support her and hope that if/when she gets tired of it she come seeking for truth and if she does be there for her, and if she doesn’t be there for her.

 

[nsper7]

The challenge is refuting Calvin from the perspective of Sola Scriptura Extremis.

I don’t know if that is possible and I firmly believe Sola Scriptura Extremis is an incorrect and dangerous doctrine (like many heterodox ideas, it often begins with a minor, maybe even originally unnoticable, twisting of an orthodox doctrine).

SSE will, as far as I can tell, seeks a literalist (explicit to the current reader) and decontextualized meaning of the text, while Sola Scriptura should seek the intended (by the author/Inspirer) and literal (factual/true) meaning.

I’ll give an example of this:

Suppose you hear someone yell, “We murdered’em!”

A literalist/decontextualized SSE-style interpretation would be unable to determine whether this statement meant the person speaking had wrongfully ended someone else’s life or had won a major and wide victory over someone else in a game of sport (i.e. football).

Sola Scriptura-style interpretation would say we have to look at the context (i.e. has this person used this phrase before? how do others interpret this statement? does this person have blood all over themselves or are they wearing a sports uniform?) to try and determine what this person intended to convey in his statement (‘I just committed homicide’ or ‘I just won a big game’).

And, of course, this is a simplistic example because this is all in English and occurring in contemporary times. The Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and to different cultures (Ancient Israelite, Hellenistic, Roman). The Scriptures consist of numerous genres of writings (narrative, law codes, poetry, letters, proverbial/adverbial/wisdom literature, prophecy, etc.) and were penned by different authors (although they were all inspired by the Spirit of God, each writer has a different style of writing and, assumedly, a different personal reason for writing, compare the Pauline, Petrine and Johanine Epistles or each of the Synoptic Gospels; in each of the epistles, different issues in different geographically and socio-culturally located congregations are being addressed). Since the Scriptures were penned and canonized, many different groups coming different theological angles have put forth interpretations, of varying doctrinal and theological ‘correctness’ of course, of Scripture (i.e. Pharisaic Jewish vs. Patristic vs. Gnostic vs. other early heterodox/heretical interpretations vs. Luther vs. Calvin vs. Counter-Reformation vs. Fundamentalist vs. secular humanist…and this is just naming a few). Furthermore, if you read J. P. Holding’s article on Sola Scriptura Extermis, the issue of a high-context/low-context society has to be considered (i.e. in the Hellenistic-Roman context of the writing/oral transmission of Scripture and doctrine, it was assumed the reader might have understood certain truths/facts that would then be left unwritten/unspoken). Of course, these are not the only issues that might set up the historical, literary, linguistic and textual context.

Thus, the Scriptures are the final authority on doctrine, but the proper use of context and extra-Scriptural knowledge is inherently necessary, barring an extraordinary case of Divine revelation, in order to even attempt to find the intended (by the author/Inspirer) and truthful (according to the Inspirer) interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[epostle]

If you get stumped on a question of “where is that Catholic teaching in the Bible?”,
just say it follows the verse that lists the 27 books of the NT, but I don’t know the numbers.
or "right after the verse that contains the word “bible”.
jblake offers sound advice. Be a friend first, that she may preserve your dignity.

 

[jblake]

nsper7;:

believe Sola Scriptura Extremis is an incorrect and dangerous doctrine

I’ll grant that. However, that is usually the starting position of those advocates.

xan

jonathon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It behooves me to understand how people get the idea that their faith must be based on the Bible only when if this is true then the first Christians must have all known how to read and from the Torah only they somehow understood the fullness of the faith. For the New Testament was yet unwritten and the number of copies of any book were extremely limited. The Bible itself discloses that the early Christians learned their faith by hearing as well as by being taught the scriptures and this amounts to Tradition and Scripture both guided by the Apostolic Teaching. In modern terms that’s Tradition, Scripture and Magisterial teaching as a unity.

All of which are found - albeit in a slightly different way - in the NT as a collection of books.​

Sola Scriptura is not as easy to defend - for the reasons you give - if applied to the period in which the Books were composed - as if applied to the period after which they were canonised. So it depends on which sort of of Scriptura Sola one believes in; or, for that matter, attributes to others.

As to the meaning of Sola - Scriptura is sola, alone, not absolutely & without qualification, but as a supreme judge in religious controversy & life & faith; its authority is contrasted with that of Tradition as a judge of such matters; & any pairing of the two is rejected, so that Scripture is alone such a judge & guide, & is not co-ordinated with Tradition or its organs. In fact, it includes & judges Tradition. Which is why NT mentions of Tradition are of no force if appealed to as authorities outside Scripture; it is Scripture that tells us of these traditions - even though they may once have been outside it.

And that is what you have in the Catholic Church which originated by Jesus and through an unbroken line of apostolic succession stands in the face of the world today! Why do people struggle to sever the ties with the Bride of Christ as St. Paul calls the Catholic Church? I suppose it may be like a teen seeking freedom only to later discover that slavery comes from rebellion and freedom from humility. He then comes home at last.

Read a few Protestant Confessions of Faith, & maybe you will find out why - Catholics will never persuade Protestants of the wrongness of Protestantism, if they ignore what Protestantism teaches. Stereotypes & caricatures are valueless.​

 

[epostle]

Sola Scriptura is not as easy to defend - for the reasons you give - if applied to the period in which the Books were composed - as if applied to the period after which they were canonised. So it depends on which sort of of Scriptura Sola one believes in; or, for that matter, attributes to others.

My words are in blue, the green text is stolen from:
surprisedbytruth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1659&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=huiou%2Ctheou

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Agreed, which leads to a further delemna. In order for “the sole rule of faith” to refer to the time of enscripturation, then logically that is the time the teachings originiated, particularly the Epistles. this makes the Church come from the Bible, without ‘handing down’ anything. The Gospels are viewed in the light of the Epistles, not the other way around. That may be one reason why SS-ists rely so heavily on St. Paul.

SS-ists are resistant to the significance of canonization of scripture, because they think we mean the Church, as a human insitution apart from Christ, has more authority than the Bible. We fall into their trap by placing the emphasis on Church authority over and above scripture. This misconception must be avoided because it distorts the relationship beween Tradition and Scripture, and Protestants are deeply indoctrinated into thinking that Christ is not in the Catholic Church, making canonization a mute point. (which demands historical revisionism)

The Church is the Body of Christ and no truth about Him can be found outside of Him. By placing the Scripture outside the Church and setting them up as the “sole rule of faith” prots turn the Bible into another “christ” in competition with the real Christ who is found only in his Church. In essence, they make the Bible into an idol that stands alone over and above the Mystical Body of Christ and his Spirit. They then use man-made methods of eisegesis based on the authority of pagan grammar and vocabulary wielded by mere men by their own effort and with no Apostolic Succession. Theological “Pelagianism” is an intolerable error, but it does no good to point this out to Protestants.
What may help is to point out that we believe in the material sufficiency of scripture. Surprised? MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it. This SS doctrine self-destructs because it is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

 

[bill210]

Happy New Year Michael. You are incorrect in your analysis but I do ,in fact, respect Protestant beliefs. However,you are entitled to your opinion. One must understand that there is a major difference between “tradition” mentioned in the bible and Sacred Tradition which is an essential component of Divine Revelation.
Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teaching are a trinity of Revelation and as such are absolutely One. To dispense of one or more of these is to risk serious error in faith. Peter says that no prophecy of scripture is for private interpretation and it is to the teaching authority of the Church that he refers. John says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth. This is a good example of how one can start one,s own denomination; simply by teaching a personal interpretation of scripture taking the Holy Spirit as a personal guarantee of inerrancy. Hence, over 22,000 denominations all of which claim to be correct.
Jesus’ promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is for the Church and this guidance was for the revelation of the scriptures of the New Testament which were yet to be written as well as for the guidance of the Vicar of Christ, Peter. The teaching of the apostles was from what they knew and remembered of their time with Jesus and you can find Paul referring to this as hearing by word of mouth and by letter.
God bless and keep you and I pray that you have taken no offense at my posts. My intent is not to argue but only to share with you the truth.
Bill