Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[MDK]

Besides being condescending in your previous posts, you are now twisting my words to say something that I am not saying. I can not have an intelligent conversation on this basis.

Believe it or not, I actually form opinions of faiths based on how members behave and act. Right now I am developing a very low opinion of Catholicism based on this conversation.

I’m out of here.

Another dodge of the question. You can’t respond, it’s plain and simple. Neither will you listen to responses provided. Properly stated, you ignore truth to feel more comfortable promoting what you want.

That you look bad because you can’t defend what you promoted does not mean there is condescension. There was no twisting of words. I showed what you did and did not do, and di so fairly and justly. If you believe it was not so, please show where it was. Once again, you divert attention.

If you form your faith from how people act, then you’re missing the point. I form my faith based on what Christ did and said.

Besides, if you did form your faith based on what I did and said, you would be Catholic. You cannot defend your anti-Catholic comments and beliefs. I can defend Catholicism and do so.

You avoid the questions because you can’t defend what you’ve promoted, and you realize it. Whether you admit that or not is a different story.

Good luck to you, and may God please grace you with truth.

 

[With_Questions]

How do you know that the NT is Scripture? This is where Sola Scriptura falls flat.

First of all, what is your definition of Sola Scriptura? Depending on what definition is used, you might have good questions. Also you might be creating a strawman. I dunno.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

First of all, what is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

When I was a Baptist, I didn’t use the high-falutin’ Latin words for it, but I believed that the Bible Alone was the sole rule of faith and final authority. “God’s Word says it, I believe it.” It wasn’t until I had a crisis of faith and began researching every Christian belief system, including Catholicism, (much to my chagrin) that I realized how much of “God’s Word” was being ignored, glossed over, or explained away in order to maintain certain Baptist doctrines.

It also troubled me that Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and those hard-to-pin-down non-denominationals would say that they believe the Bible Alone, but they come to conflicting and contradictory conclusions about what the very same Book said! Even under the huge umbrella of “Baptist” there is no unity in doctrine.

The more I prayed and read the Gospels, the more Catholic I found the Bible to be. Every non-Catholic Christian denomination can trace its beginnings to a man or group of men. Only the Catholic Church began with Christ.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where is sola scriptura in the bible???

No.
Next question.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

First of all, what is your definition of Sola Scriptura? Depending on what definition is used, you might have good questions. Also you might be creating a strawman. I dunno.

Ah, I see you added some to your post after I replied to the first question. I assure you, these are not strawman questions. They are valid questions that I myself was asked. I did my homework and discovered the true origins of the Bible, and I knew that I wasn’t ever truly Sola Scriptura and it’s impossible to be. Every faith community has their own extra-Biblical traditions. Not being explicitly spelled out in writing doesn’t make them wrong.

For example: The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, yet Christians believe in a Triune God. That’s an extra-Biblical term that originally meant any set of three and eventually became the word to define Father, Son and Holy Spirit- One God in Three Persons.

As a Baptist, I believed in the “rapture” - this word is also not found in the Bible anywhere. It’s an extra-Biblical term for a doctrine invented in the early 1800s. I still believe in a rapture, but definitely not the one put forth by those of the Left Behind mentality.

Celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th is a tradition that came to us from the Catholic Church. (I realize that some Christians don’t celebrate His birth because there is no Scriptural mandate to do so, but they’re in the minority.) Even the secular world got “Santa Claus” from a living, breathing Catholic Saint who had a tender heart for children.

 

[With_Questions]

When I was a Baptist, I didn’t use the high-falutin’ Latin words for it, but I believed that the Bible Alone was the sole rule of faith and final authority. “God’s Word says it, I believe it.” It wasn’t until I had a crisis of faith and began researching every Christian belief system, including Catholicism, (much to my chagrin) that I realized how much of “God’s Word” was being ignored, glossed over, or explained away in order to maintain certain Baptist doctrines.

Well join the club. We don’t use the high-falutin’ Latin words for it either.

I have heard the “sole rule of faith and final authority” definition.

You ask a good question in respect to the canon because that is an obvious case where we all believe something (the New Testament has the epistle of Hebrews but not the Epistle of 1 Clement) that is not spelled out in Scripture. Obviously that “sole rule of faith and final authority” definition needs to handle this.

But that’s what happens when you take a topic that really needs a paper of a few pages to explain, smoosh it down to a sentence definition, and then smoosh it down to a two word slogan that lacks a verb. Important detail gets omitted.

It also troubled me that Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and those hard-to-pin-down non-denominationals would say that they believe the Bible Alone, but they come to conflicting and contradictory conclusions about what the very same Book said! Even under the huge umbrella of “Baptist” there is no unity in doctrine.

Actually here you also have a good question. Now I am glad you did not sidetrack the discussion into 30,000 denominations, because you lose your more important question into an argument about detail and exaggeration.

Obviously a whole lot of people who are a whole lot smarter than me disagree on quite a bit of detail as to what the Bible teaches.

But depending on your definition of Sola Scriptura, I am not sure that this phenomenon negates the idea. Neither am I convinced that Sola Scriptura (however you define it) is the cause of this phenomenon. However, it is a good question to ask why this is.

The more I prayed and read the Gospels, the more Catholic I found the Bible to be. Every non-Catholic Christian denomination can trace its beginnings to a man or group of men. Only the Catholic Church began with Christ.

Well, this gets back to the one other thread I popped in on where I asked a number of questions along these lines. However, to keep it simple, I won’t go there.

Good do see someone on this thread who is not condescending and who will not twist what I say like the US news media is totally distorting Sarah Palin (sorry but this story is totally ticking me off for the last few days).

 

[MDK]

Ah, I see you added some to your post after I replied to the first question. I assure you, these are not strawman questions. They are valid questions that I myself was asked. I did my homework and discovered the true origins of the Bible, and I knew that I wasn’t ever truly Sola Scriptura and it’s impossible to be. Every faith community has their own extra-Biblical traditions. Not being explicitly spelled out in writing doesn’t make them wrong.

For example: The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, yet Christians believe in a Triune God. That’s an extra-Biblical term that originally meant any set of three and eventually became the word to define Father, Son and Holy Spirit- One God in Three Persons.

As a Baptist, I believed in the “rapture” - this word is also not found in the Bible anywhere. It’s an extra-Biblical term for a doctrine invented in the early 1800s. I still believe in a rapture, but definitely not the one put forth by those of the Left Behind mentality.

Celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th is a tradition that came to us from the Catholic Church. (I realize that some Christians don’t celebrate His birth because there is no Scriptural mandate to do so, but they’re in the minority.) Even the secular world got “Santa Claus” from a living, breathing Catholic Saint who had a tender heart for children.

Pixie,
What you wrote was accurate for the definition of the Bible alone as “the sole rule of faith and final authority,” as this is widely accepted as what it means. It’s a credit to your humility and honesty in seeking Him that you did what you did. I believe our Father has already done so, and may He continue to richly bless you.

 

[With_Questions]

Ah, I see you added some to your post after I replied to the first question. I assure you, these are not strawman questions. They are valid questions that I myself was asked. I did my homework and discovered the true origins of the Bible, and I knew that I wasn’t ever truly Sola Scriptura and it’s impossible to be. Every faith community has their own extra-Biblical traditions. Not being explicitly spelled out in writing doesn’t make them wrong.

Actually from my armchair research, I think I am more “Prima Scriptura” than “Sola Scriptura”. At least if I use Wikipedia as the basis for my understanding of these phrases which is probaly not a good idea.

But I do agree that all faith communities do seem to have extra-Biblical traditions. The issue in my mind is the relative importance of these traditions as juxtaposed to those that are Biblically defensible.

For example: The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, yet Christians believe in a Triune God. That’s an extra-Biblical term that originally meant any set of three and eventually became the word to define Father, Son and Holy Spirit- One God in Three Persons.

Well, I don’t see whereas this contradicts anything. It is just starting with a concept that needs a few sentences to explain and then coming up with a word that is shorthand for this concept that is certainly defensible from the Bible.

As a Baptist, I believed in the “rapture” - this word is also not found in the Bible anywhere. It’s an extra-Biblical term for a doctrine invented in the early 1800s. I still believe in a rapture, but definitely not the one put forth by those of the Left Behind mentality.

Ah yes…the rapture…Left Behind…and I’ll fly away. We won’t go there.

Celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th is a tradition that came to us from the Catholic Church. (I realize that some Christians don’t celebrate His birth because there is no Scriptural mandate to do so, but they’re in the minority.) Even the secular world got “Santa Claus” from a living, breathing Catholic Saint who had a tender heart for children.

Ah yes…Christmas. I realize that celebrating Christmas is not in the Bible. But unless your definition of Sola Scriptura specifies that everything that you do and practice as a believer must be specified in the Bible or else you are wrong, I don’t see whereas this is a problem.

I have come across some who take this position, but I don’t want to be the one to break it to them that they are terribly inconsistent on this point unless their churches do not have parking lots for their members to park their automobiles in.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hi, T.U.
The oldest synagogues have been found not in Israel, but in Egypt where the oldest synagogues date from the 3rd century BCE. Their function was to serve as place of worship. As it was forbidden to build other temples besides the one in Jerusalem, an alternative institution was installed. After the Temple was destroyed more synagogues in Israel appeared.

Quote= OneNow1: And these are only the ones found. It only stands to reason there where more ancient synagogues, places where they gathered etc. And were preached to.

Matthew 23

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice what they preach.

Quote=OneNow1 I wasn’t there but in all probability the same as Jesus describes in Matthew 23.

Peace, OneNow1

Your claim was that God does not give His word to men without an infallible interpreter. Yet God had been giving His word to men for 1500 years before the founding of the Church. The Church requires no more infallible interpretation than this.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Well join the club. We don’t use the high-falutin’ Latin words for it either.

I have heard the “sole rule of faith and final authority” definition.

You ask a good question in respect to the canon because that is an obvious case where we all believe something (the New Testament has the epistle of Hebrews but not the Epistle of 1 Clement) that is not spelled out in Scripture. Obviously that “sole rule of faith and final authority” definition needs to handle this.

But that’s what happens when you take a topic that really needs a paper of a few pages to explain, smoosh it down to a sentence definition, and then smoosh it down to a two word slogan that lacks a verb. Important detail gets omitted.

Exactly. The fact that this “two word slogan that lacks a verb” didn’t exist until some 1500 years after the Apostolic period is very telling, IMO.

Actually here you also have a good question. Now I am glad you did not sidetrack the discussion into 30,000 denominations, because you lose your more important question into an argument about detail and exaggeration.

I don’t tend to go there, especially in a thread where it wouldn’t be helpful to the main topic at hand.

Obviously a whole lot of people who are a whole lot smarter than me disagree on quite a bit of detail as to what the Bible teaches.

But depending on your definition of Sola Scriptura, I am not sure that this phenomenon negates the idea. Neither am I convinced that Sola Scriptura (however you define it) is the cause of this phenomenon. However, it is a good question to ask why this is.

Well, considering that the Church was essentially One (we’ll not go into the Catholic/Orthodox schism here, either) until this new-fangled idea popped up, and now, 500 years later we have several denominations all claiming, “We use the Bible Alone!” yet coming to conflicting and contradictory conclusions, even to the point of saying that because [insert denomination] believes [insert doctrine that conflicts with “my” denomination] they aren’t true Christians, or are misguided, or what have you.

Well, this gets back to the one other thread I popped in on where I asked a number of questions along these lines. However, to keep it simple, I won’t go there.

For an excellent history lesson, you can visit the Bible Christian Society and download “One Church” and any others that look like they might help you understand the Catholic Church. They’re totally free.

Good do see someone on this thread who is not condescending and who will not twist what I say like the US news media is totally distorting Sarah Palin (sorry but this story is totally ticking me off for the last few days).

In recent history, this board has been bombarded with non-Catholic posters who have asked some of the same questions you are asking, but with a not-so-hidden agenda. You appear to be sincerely seeking answers to your questions. You’ll have to forgive some of the Catholics here who are less than charitable in their answers as it’s just frustration at having to re-visit and thwomp what, for many of us, are dead horses. It’s hard to tell sometimes who is truly seeking, and those who come attempting to convert Catholics and “save” us from the evil clutches of Rome.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Actually from my armchair research, I think I am more “Prima Scriptura” than “Sola Scriptura”. At least if I use Wikipedia as the basis for my understanding of these phrases which is probaly not a good idea.

Heh, heh. Wikipedia can be helpful at times, and disastrously un-helpful at other times. The Catholic position is that Sacred Tradition is what produced Sacred Scripture, so the two cannot be separated. The Church was in existence for years before the Bible canon closed.

But I do agree that all faith communities do seem to have extra-Biblical traditions. The issue in my mind is the relative importance of these traditions as juxtaposed to those that are Biblically defensible.

The problem is that they like to claim that they do not have extra-Biblical traditions.

Well, I don’t see whereas this contradicts anything. It is just starting with a concept that needs a few sentences to explain and then coming up with a word that is shorthand for this concept that is certainly defensible from the Bible.

It contradicts Sola Scriptura. If someone truly believes the “Bible Alone” then the word Trinity should not be in their working vocabulary.

Ah yes…Christmas. I realize that celebrating Christmas is not in the Bible. But unless your definition of Sola Scriptura specifies that everything that you do and practice as a believer must be specified in the Bible or else you are wrong, I don’t see whereas this is a problem.

I have come across some who take this position, but I don’t want to be the one to break it to them that they are terribly inconsistent on this point unless their churches do not have parking lots for their members to park their automobiles in.

There are Christians for whom this is absolutely true. The Bible doesn’t say, “Celebrate Christmas” so they don’t. But you’re right, it is somewhat inconsistent and who are we to point that out.

 

[With_Questions]

In recent history, this board has been bombarded with non-Catholic posters who have asked some of the same questions you are asking, but with a not-so-hidden agenda. You appear to be sincerely seeking answers to your questions. You’ll have to forgive some of the Catholics here who are less than charitable in their answers as it’s just frustration at having to re-visit and thwomp what, for many of us, are dead horses. It’s hard to tell sometimes who is truly seeking, and those who come attempting to convert Catholics and “save” us from the evil clutches of Rome.

I am actually neither.

I have no interest in changing churches. I just want to broaden my understanding of Christianity and at the same time challenge some of my beliefs that I hold only because I was always taught that way.

Now if in the process of broadening my understanding of Christianity I uncover a belief system that is clearly superior to mine, then maybe I can revisit this. However, I have a high standard as to what is “clearly superior to mine” so I doubt whether this will happen.

At the same time, while I certainly have issues with Catholicism, to be fair I have some issues with my church. I don’t know enough about Catholicism to conclude that it is an evil religion, certainly I don’t get that impression based upon what little I know.

And the folks that claim Catholicism is the spawn-of-satan give me the impression of being first-rate dolts anyway.

 

[MDK]

In recent history, this board has been bombarded with non-Catholic posters who have asked some of the same questions you are asking, but with a not-so-hidden agenda. You appear to be sincerely seeking answers to your questions. You’ll have to forgive some of the Catholics here who are less than charitable in their answers as it’s just frustration at having to re-visit and thwomp what, for many of us, are dead horses. It’s hard to tell sometimes who is truly seeking, and those who come attempting to convert Catholics and “save” us from the evil clutches of Rome.

You bring up a very good point. Very often the non-Catholics and anti-Catholics do come in with an agenda and the truth will not get in their way. I agree that there are some modes of operation from this person that seem genuine. I’ve put the person in “ignore,” but from reading what’s in your posts, there is a switch from what was done earlier to a much more mild line of discussion and attempt at friendliness, which is nice to see. From earlier one would have to ask, is it charitable to bear false witness against another by making false accusations of wrongdoing, even if done fairly politely? I would think not, as we know that God never gave permission to break His eighth commandment with smiles on our faces. Is it charitable to present “shifting sand” encounters, hiding behind false definitions and shifting the conversation to something that does not belongs on this thread as the conversation goes along? I would think not. Is it charitable to tell the truth, and hold one accountable to the truth? I would think this is perfectly acceptable, as the desire is not to condemn, but to expose fallacy or dodging the questions to get one onto the right track. Sometimes, those who were not honestly seeking will see that their method and tact doesn’t work, dropping the falsehood(s) to have a more decent discussion.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I am actually neither.

I have no interest in changing churches. I just want to broaden my understanding of Christianity and at the same time challenge some of my beliefs that I hold only because I was always taught that way.

Now if in the process of broadening my understanding of Christianity I uncover a belief system that is clearly superior to mine, then maybe I can revisit this. However, I have a high standard as to what is “clearly superior to mine” so I doubt whether this will happen.

I had no interest in becoming Catholic, I even said, “I’m not about become Catholic, but…” darn if I didn’t see that Catholicism makes sense as my understanding broadened. I realized that, contrary to what I’d been told, the Catholic Church was a Christian Church - THE Original Christian Church. I had to get hit in the head with a Holy Spirit 2x4 to see it though. Seeing the massive chink in my “Bible Alone!” armor was just one proverbial rug yanked out from under my feet during my journey.

At the same time, while I certainly have issues with Catholicism, to be fair I have some issues with my church. I don’t know enough about Catholicism to conclude that it is an evil religion, certainly I don’t get that impression based upon what little I know.

After you listen to “One Church” check out “Apostolic Authority and the Pope.” Every one of my issues with Catholicism boiled down to Authority.

And the folks that claim Catholicism is the spawn-of-satan give me the impression of being first-rate dolts anyway.

Well, I went from first-rate dolt to devout Catholic. Proof that God still works miracles.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

You bring up a very good point. Very often the non-Catholics and anti-Catholics do come in with an agenda and the truth will not get in their way. I agree that there are some modes of operation from this person that seem genuine. I’ve put the person in “ignore,” but from reading what’s in your posts, there is a switch from what was done earlier to a much more mild line of discussion and attempt at friendliness, which is nice to see. From earlier one would have to ask, is it charitable to bear false witness against another by making false accusations of wrongdoing, even if done fairly politely? I would think not, as we know that God never gave permission to break His eighth commandment with smiles on our faces. Is it charitable to present “shifting sand” encounters, hiding behind false definitions and shifting the conversation to something that does not belongs on this thread as the conversation goes along? I would think not. Is it charitable to tell the truth, and hold one accountable to the truth? I would think this is perfectly acceptable, as the desire is not to condemn, but to expose fallacy or dodging the questions to get one onto the right track. Sometimes, those who were not honestly seeking will see that their method and tact doesn’t work, dropping the falsehood(s) to have a more decent discussion.

I’ve read through this entire thread this morning, and my gut instinct is that we are dealing with a sincere question-asker. Someone presented a definition of Sola Scriptura, and WQ simply asked, (paraphrase) “What’s the problem with this?” I have seen no false accusations being raised on the part of WQ, though sadly I have seen some Catholic brethren try to attribute false motives to his/her questions. Somewhat understandable in light of other recent encounters with other posters, but we must always assume the best intentions until they’re proven otherwise. Let us do what we can to make our non-Catholic guests welcome here and invite them to ask about our most Holy Faith, not verbally malign them for even asking.

 

[With_Questions]

It contradicts Sola Scriptura. If someone truly believes the “Bible Alone” then the word Trinity should not be in their working vocabulary.

What definition of Sola Scriptura are you using such that the use of the word Trinity as shorthand for the concept of the Trinity as taught in the Bible represents a contradiction?

Then who as Protestants actually use this definition?

I am curious because I will make sure to avoid such folks if they actually exist.

 

[MDK]

I’ve read through this entire thread this morning, and my gut instinct is that we are dealing with a sincere question-asker. Someone presented a definition of Sola Scriptura, and WQ simply asked, (paraphrase) “What’s the problem with this?” I have seen no false accusations being raised on the part of WQ, though sadly I have seen some Catholic brethren try to attribute false motives to his/her questions. Somewhat understandable in light of other recent encounters with other posters, but we must always assume the best intentions until they’re proven otherwise. Let us do what we can to make our non-Catholic guests welcome here and invite them to ask about our most Holy Faith, not verbally malign them for even asking.

Not talking about the original question, as that was obviously okay (was also an endorsement of the idea as well, but still, that’s not the problem). It was how it went from there. I too had feelings that there was some genuineness to it, and did not expect there to be a problem with it. As it went along, there were problems that developed. I had assumed the best as well, then was sadly disappointed. I don’t see an attempt to attribute something that wasn’t there, as I wish it were not. Hostility arose from this person’s posts to honest responses, and impoliteness did as well. The false accusations from the WQ have to do with accusing Catholics of twisting his/her words, which did not happen. It was laid out in a straightforward manner, and his/her words were absolutely not twisted in the least. They could not/would not answer the questions… that’s plain to see. I really don’t mind, but let’s please be honest about it. I think there has been a concerted effort by this person to increase the level of niceness, which is appreciated.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What definition of Sola Scriptura are you using such that the use of the word Trinity as shorthand for the concept of the Trinity as taught in the Bible represents a contradiction?

Then who as Protestants actually use this definition?

I am curious because I will make sure to avoid such folks if they actually exist.

I simply mean that if someone truly, sincerely believes that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith and final authority in matters of faith, then that someone shouldn’t use the word Trinity because it’s not found in the Bible. If they do use the word Trinity then they automatically cease to be Sola Scriptura, there is the contradiction. There was actually a poster on here a while ago (who has since been banned, I believe) who did not use the word Trinity (though he agreed with the concept) because the word itself wasn’t in the Bible. He still went to church on Sundays, though.

 

[SIA]

He indeed appealed to the authority of the scriptures. But where does that imply sola scriptura? Jesus is speaking here as an Old Testament man. There was no church in the Old Testament. But there is a church in the New Testament and that is what has been given the authority (1 Tim 3:15).

I don’t believe that anyone is saying that the Bible is the only world known source of authority that is prudent to the Christian faith, but what has been said by Christ himself and other authors of the New Testament time and time again is that the important factors and events in history solidly attainable to the Christian IS written in Scripture. Scripture is surely NOT the be all to end all in the Christian life, but it is the one thing that we have that is truly God’s Word and truly the truth unchanged for 2,000+ years. It is by which Christians should be equipped as a plumb and level. Paul eluded to this.

 

[MDK]

I don’t believe that anyone is saying that the Bible is the only world known source of authority that is prudent to the Christian faith, but what has been said by Christ himself and other authors of the New Testament time and time again is that the important factors and events in history solidly attainable to the Christian IS written in Scripture. Scripture is surely NOT the be all to end all in the Christian life, but it is the one thing that we have that is truly God’s Word and truly the truth unchanged for 2,000+ years. It is by which Christians should be equipped as a plumb and level. Paul eluded to this.

SIA,
Welcome to the discussion. I believe the idea is that the Bible alone being promoted is that it’s the rule of faith, and highest authority we have here on earth. It’s not the only authority, but the highest to which all other things must conform or be judged, the standard.

I hope we would all agree that having the correct interpretation of Scriptures is not only desirable but is absolutely necessary. One problem comes in regarding interpretation… Whose interpretation of these Scriptures is accurate? How do you know the interpretation you use is accurate? It comes down to who has the “rite” to teach God’s Word authoritatively? Are you guaranteed to be infallible in your teaching of what is written in the Bible?

You bring up a good example in following what Christ taught and going with what He established. If we believe that Christ taught one thing due to an errant interpretation, but when interpreted and taught without error it’s quite different, then where are we in relation to His teachings? Are we where we want to be and speaking properly about what our Lord said and established?