C
- Status
P
Pulvis
Guest
“So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
(2 Timothy 2:22-26 ESV)
(2 Timothy 3:10-17 ESV)
You will do better to support and defend your cause if you use less sarcasm and personal assaults and stick to the facts.
(2 Timothy 2:22-26 ESV)
Code:
"You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."You will do better to support and defend your cause if you use less sarcasm and personal assaults and stick to the facts.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This has nothing at all to do with our topic. Catholics are not the ones who are always on about the Bible being the final and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice, so don’t try to lay what this passage says on us.
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:10-17 ESV)Nowhere in there does it even infer that scripture is anything more than “profitable”. It does not say that it is all sufficient, so if this is your “scriptural support” for Sola Scriptura then I invite you to stick with what it actually says and not try to force a different interpretation onto the text.
I have done neither of these things. I have asked for scriptures that specifically lay claim to the authority that is ascribed to it by adherents of Sola Scriptura, so please supply them or reconsider its validity as correct doctrine since without such scriptural support it violates its own premise and, being unbiblical, cannot by its own standard, be a correct Christian doctrine.
Please feel free to educate us if you feel that we are wrong here.
A
Abu
Guest
The inference in using the above reference ignores the essential proviso stipulated in Sacred Scripture:
Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42).
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).
“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).
In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”
1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).
Thus trying to rely on Scripture and self-interpretation while ignoring the Church which Christ Himself founded to teach mankind the Way to heaven shows the failure of “the Bible…is all we need”. Such an assumption is totally against the Christ who wrote nothing and gave mankind His Catholic Church which Church defined the books and gave us the Sacred Scriptures.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
R
ready
Guest
No, the Bible is not all we need. We need the Church to interpret the Bible and we also need Tradition because not everything we need to know about our faith is found in the Bible–some teachings have been handed down vocally by the Apostles to their successors without having been recorded in the Scriptures. God bless you.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Still nothing from you guys who believe in Sola Scriptura? Why is that?
You have your Bibles and you study them constantly (but then…so do I and many of these other Catholics here…)
Where is your specific scriptural basis for this belief?
You have your Bibles and you study them constantly (but then…so do I and many of these other Catholics here…)
Where is your specific scriptural basis for this belief?
R
ready
Guest
We both know that they’'ll never be able to defend themselves, for NOWHERE in a Catholic Bible does it say that the Bible alone is all we need. The Bible does mention the necessity of Tradition, the oral teachings that are handed down by the Apostles. God bless you…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Well, I still want anyone who holds to this belief to have the opportunity to show us where we are wrong about it. So far, there seems to have been almost no effort made by any n-Cs on here, which surprises me a bit since this is a cherished and fundamental doctrine of most n-C communities and one that they are always very quick to jump on any available Catholic about, so I would like to let them have their shot and let us respond for the sake of all those who may not know how to respond.
T
thetazlord
Guest
Actually that’s because in general, Christians have a false assumption of what sola scriptura actually is, which is the Biblically-supported doctrine that all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19). This is why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew Ch.15 for their “precepts the doctrines of men” because not only were they contradicting Scripture, they were also ADDING TO Scripture (“precepts the doctrines of MEN”). This is why when Jesus corrected their “man-made traditions,” he used Scripture to correct them (‘As it is written…’ (Matthew 26:24; Mark 7:6; 9:13; 14:21; etc) & ‘Have you not read?’ (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:41; Mark 12:10,26; Luke 63; etc). Jesus never appeals to extra-scriptural “tradition” to correct false doctrines or teachings, which is the point of 2 Timothy 3:16, which for Christians also refers to NEW Testament Inspired Scriptures as well (Luke 10:7, cf. 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:1,19; etc). In fact, out of the 14 times “tradition” is mentioned in Scripture, it’s mentioned negatively. The THREE times it’s mentioned positively (1 Corinth 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6), it’s in the context of “oral tradition” that Paul that he had just written down - not “extra-scriptual tradition” with ZERO Scriptural support. In order to realize this you have to read the SURROUNDING passages of those THREE verses - not just quote-mine them out of context. So, using the argument about the authority of “traditions” in the church, that authority is only God-breathed insofar as that “tradition” & “authority” being able to backed up by God-breathed Scripture. Scripture never supports “extra-scriptural tradition” as being at the same “level” as God-breathed Scripture. In fact, it condemns it. And saying because “the Church does,” is just circular reasoning.
A
ahs
Guest
This is partially true…many Christians don’t know what “sola Scriptura” means to the various Christians who espouse the idea. In fact, many Christians who espouse SS will give you many different explanations/definitions/etc. of what it means. I would say that this is a real problem. You can’t really claim that a belief is true, if you have no authoritative way of defining it, can you? Is your understanding of SS more correct than some other Christian’s who also espouses SS?
Cannot exceed, add, subtract, or contradict WHOSE interpretation of Scripture? Among sola Scriptura Christians, I find many with directly opposing views of doctrines, each of them claiming that the other group is contradicting Scripture with their respective doctrines, yet each is based “solely” on Scripture. How do you decide if someone is contradicting Scripture without first assuming that your understanding is the correct one and all others are wrong?
Right. All of these support NOT contradicting God’s Word. But not one of these supports Scripture ALONE, nor do any of them diminish the Oral Word of God [spoken], nor do any suggest that the spoken Word is of less value than the written.
Actually, He does exactly that, which is why the Jews wanted to kill Him. "You have heard it said" [and then He quotes the OT; i.e. “an eye for an eye”], “but I say to you”…[then He introduces a teaching NOT in the OT Scriptures that we are now bound to accept, yet which was not recorded until sometime after Christ rose to Heaven, and of which, as Scripture tells us plainly, not all of these things were written down].
That’s not how Timothy would have understood it, because Paul specifically directs him to the Scriptures of his youth, and much of the NT had yet to be written by this time. Any future NT writings (John’s Gospel, Revelation, etc.) would have otherwise been seen as “adding to the Word” in that case, and would have thus been rejected by Timothy (if he saw it the way you currently see it).
I think you are confusing “traditions of men” [ritual washings, hypocrisy of the Pharisees, etc.] as opposed to Apostolic Traditions.
**Are you saying that every single tradition that Paul exhorts us to adhere to were written down by Paul? Is there a Scriptural passage that leads you to believe this? ** I will argue that NOT all of the traditions we are told to adhere to are written by Paul or the other Apostles. Chief among them, the Canon of the NT. Not one author in the NT lists the Canon of NT Scripture.
…such as the NT Canon, which has ZERO Scriptural support and is an “extra-Scriptural tradition”. Or, sola Scriptura, which also has ZERO Scriptural support and is an “extra-Scriptural tradition”. Can you provide the Chapter and verse that says, “Scripture Alone”? Or must you rely on your fallible interpretation of Scripture to conclude this?
AMEN!!! I will argue that in concluding SS from the Bible, “quote-mining” is exactly what you have to do.
Chapter and verse please. And please don’t resort to the logical fallacy where you conclude that “Word of God” is equal to “ONLY the written Word”.
That is the exact opposite of what the Bible says. 1Pet 1:25 explicitly tells us that the Word of God is that which is PREACHED to us (oral). 2Tim 2:2 says that we are to entrust what we have HEARD (oral) to others. 2Thess 2:15 explicitly tells us to hold fast to the written AND the oral traditions. Why should I reject 2Thess 2:15?
No it isn’t. It’s basing facts upon the authority of Christ, via Christ’s Church, whom He gave authority to speak with His very Voice (Lk 10:16) and deciding to not reject His Church.
[Edit: bolded pertinent questions that I would like addressed.]
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
- Did any of the apostles practice sola scriptura?
- In which verse(s) does the Bible teach sola scriptura?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Good points Ahs & Randy and deserving of an answer.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Again?
I don’t get it…all these people who tell us that this is what they believe and that we are wrong to believe otherwise and they don’t show up to correct this?
C’mon now…if this most fundamental doctrine of n-C Christianity is so definitely correct, then it absolutely hast to have its basis in the Bible, but so far …not so much.
I’m beginning to think that something must be wrong here for you adherents of Sola Scriptura to not respond and straighten me and my Catholic brethren away.
A
ahs
Guest
I’ll admit that my point-by-point is sometimes over the top. But I DID go back and bold the questions/concerns that I thought should be addressed…and any proponent of SS should easily be able to address those in just a couple minutes. And Randy Carson summing it all up in just 2 questions, well, that shouldn’t take 10 seconds to answer, right?http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/crickets-chirping.jpeg
Again?
I don’t get it…all these people who tell us that this is what they believe and that we are wrong to believe otherwise and they don’t show up to correct this?
C’mon now…if this most fundamental doctrine of n-C Christianity is so definitely correct, then it absolutely hast to have its basis in the Bible, but so far …not so much.
I’m beginning to think that something must be wrong here for you adherents of Sola Scriptura to not respond and straighten me and my Catholic brethren away.
L
lantheria
Guest
why (Edited) should we? so you can once again get off to tearing down the stupid hellbound protestant heretics?http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/crickets-chirping.jpeg
Again?
I don’t get it…all these people who tell us that this is what they believe and that we are wrong to believe otherwise and they don’t show up to correct this?
C’mon now…if this most fundamental doctrine of n-C Christianity is so definitely correct, then it absolutely hast to have its basis in the Bible, but so far …not so much.
I’m beginning to think that something must be wrong here for you adherents of Sola Scriptura to not respond and straighten me and my Catholic brethren away.
the answer to your question is staring you in the mirror. you’re not going to turn us catholic with the constant triumphalism, exclusionism, belittling, mocking and downright hatred of our deepest-held beliefs that infects this forum. all you’re doing is attempting to murder our faith.
there’s only so much we can take before we say “enough’s enough” and shake the dust from our feet.
(as for sola scriptura, all i have to say is this: i use the bible. that is what i do. it’s not my problem if you don’t like that.)
A
Abu
Guest
Baiting is not the way to go, and I hope you will realise that that is not what real Catholics are about.
As Ecumenical Council Vatican II (1963-65) teaches in The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:
“15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
On “the bible” it is available to all as the “Word of God” only because Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church, which He founded on St Peter as His keeper of the “Keys of Heaven”, selected which writings should be included and authorized 27 books as the New Testament part of the Word of God without which no one would have this guarantee, as the Christ wrote nothing.
So Christ founded His Church – the Catholic Church – and gave Her His authority to teach on faith and morals to the world. She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God and has Her Sacred Tradition and Magisterium (teaching authority) from Christ.
Thus any personal interpretations that contradict or ignore His Church cannot be justified.
F
fbl9
Guest
Did not the author of the principle of sola scripture, confine the interpretations to the bounds of what the church said the word of God meant?
A
ahs
Guest
I agree with you about baiting, but I don’t think that’s what this thread was or is. If you go back to the first post, it was a response to a statement that would have been off topic in another thread, but needed to be addressed by the person in the OP because the question was “begged” (circular reasoning) by that fella’. Since it was never addressed, the question was extended to ANY non-Catholic who espouses SS. It’s pertinent to practically ANY debate that occurs between ANY Christians who disagree on ANY topic while hanging on to SS. Three questions will always arise, and will always fail to be answered by SS proponents: 1) “Can two or more] directly opposing views be equally true?” 2) “Whose interpretation/understanding of the Word is right or more right]?” 3) By what authority what authority that the other person cannot also claim for themselves] do you defend your answer to #2?"
Anyway, no one is trying to murder your faith. Someone IS trying, however, to seek a Scriptural answer to SS, and no Scriptural answer has ever been given.
Wouldn’t you agree, for example, that if those 2 questions from Randy can’t be answered from Scripture, that at the very least, SS is a non-Biblical doctrine/principle?
And if the first question cannot be answered with any historic evidence at all, then isn’t SS, by nature of it’s non-Biblical and non-Apostolic origin, a “doctrine of man”?
Here are those questions again:
J
joe371
Guest
:yup: If it’s not in the bible, (a premise bandied about by most sola scriptura advocates) then it’s not to be believed i.e. if the idea/practice of sola scriptura is nowhere found in the bible then why embrace sola scriptura…If someone could show me just one passage that pointed to the following, then I would concede: the bible is the final authority in all matters of faith, doctrine and practice.This is pretty much a prize winning example of what this thread is about. You seem to think that this interpretation sums up the whole issue, but again…this is very subjective and of course not shared with all other “Bible only” Christians.
No one is talking here about theology, though it is inescapable eventually, but the real problem is that many n-Cs believe that anyone can pick up a Bible and read it and rightly handle the word of truth but the wide diversity of interpretations and divisions among n-Cs flies in the face of that idea based upon 1st Corinthians 14:33. Moreover, there is no scripture at all where it lays claim to any such final and ultimate authority and that being the case, the very doctrine violates its own premise and so, by its own standards, cannot be correct Biblical belief.
- Status