Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[guanophore]

This same thing can also be applied to the Catholic church. Not everyone in the Catholic church believes exactly alike,

This is certainly true. There are hundreds of thousands of so called Catholics who are in open rebellion against the teaching of the Church. The difference is that there is one standard of Teaching, and those who disobey that are not in full communion with the Church. Persons who adhere to Sola Scriptura don’t have this, because they each does what is right in their own eyes.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
This same thing can also be applied to the Catholic church. Not everyone in the Catholic church believes exactly alike,

guanophore
This is certainly true. There are hundreds of thousands of so called Catholics who are in open rebellion against the teaching of the Church. The difference is that there is one standard of Teaching, and those who disobey that are not in full communion with the Church. Persons who adhere to Sola Scriptura don’t have this, because they each does what is right in their own eyes.

Huh? What is going on with “rebellious catholics” is exactly what you say goes on with those protestants who do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. Both are doing “what is right in their own eyes”?

One of the main differences between a Catholic and a Sola Scripturaist is that the Catholic not only believes the Bible but has to find ways to harmonize the Scriptures with all of the church teachings and practices. This, as you probably know is an impossible task for a number of reasons. To think that a Catholic not only needs to know his catechism extremely well (i have yet to meet one that does) and know the Scriptures well (perhaps only a handful do) is something that most catholics cannot do. Most catholics are probably in rebellion with the church and don’t it know it…

 

[PerryJ]

Huh? What is going on with “rebellious catholics” is exactly what you say goes on with those protestants who do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. Both are doing “what is right in their own eyes”?

One of the main differences between a Catholic and a Sola Scripturaist is that the Catholic not only believes the Bible but has to find ways to harmonize the Scriptures with all of the church teachings and practices. This, as you probably know is an impossible task for a number of reasons. To think that a Catholic not only needs to know his catechism extremely well (i have yet to meet one that does) and know the Scriptures well (perhaps only a handful do) is something that most catholics cannot do. Most catholics are probably in rebellion with the church and don’t it know it…

I was a Protestant and am now a Catholic. It is totally untrue that Protestant know the Bible better than Catholics. This rumor was made up by Protestants. In addition we not only know it we understand it. Anyone that reads the Bible and does not believe in the Eucharist can’t know the Bible. (Admittedly not all Protestants deny the Eucharist; however, most do not understand it.)

You can not find anything the Catholics teach that is not in harmony with Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t even get started before it starts making false claims.

Turning away from the threads statement will not help. We have been posting for days and you still can not show any proof of Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

Huh? What is going on with “rebellious catholics” is exactly what you say goes on with those protestants who do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. Both are doing “what is right in their own eyes”?

Absolutely.

One of the main differences between a Catholic and a Sola Scripturaist is that the Catholic not only believes the Bible but has to find ways to harmonize the Scriptures with all of the church teachings and practices.

Actually, this is not a “need” that Catholics have. It seems to be a need that you have that you cannot get met, because you ahve rejected the Apostolic Teachings, and therefore, cannot understand what has been written from the point of view of the writers.

Catholics understand that none of Catholic doctrine comes from the Scripture. All of it comes from Jesus, and is reflected in Scripture. Unlike all the Protestant denominations, Catholicsim is founded on the person of Christ, rather than on the limited availability and understanding of the Scripture by men of recent history.

This, as you probably know is an impossible task for a number of reasons. To think that a Catholic not only needs to know his catechism extremely well (i have yet to meet one that does) and know the Scriptures well (perhaps only a handful do) is something that most catholics cannot do. Most catholics are probably in rebellion with the church and don’t it know it…

The understanding of scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition is certainly impossible for a person such as yourself who rejects that the Sacred Tradition exists.

The Scriptures and the Catechism are not too far to reach, and can be apprehended by anyone willing to apply oneself to learn the faith. We are to study to show ourselves approved unto God.

I agree that there are many so called Catholics who are in rebellion against the Teaching of Jesus but are ignorant. However, there are also many who know the teaching, and rebell against it without studying, and for them, the sin is greater.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4161900]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? What is going on with “rebellious catholics” is exactly what you say goes on with those protestants who do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. Both are doing “what is right in their own eyes”?

One of the main differences between a Catholic and a Sola Scripturaist is that the Catholic not only believes the Bible but has to find ways to harmonize the Scriptures with all of the church teachings and practices. This, as you probably know is an impossible task for a number of reasons. To think that a Catholic not only needs to know his catechism extremely well (i have yet to meet one that does) and know the Scriptures well (perhaps only a handful do) is something that most catholics cannot do. Most catholics are probably in rebellion with the church and don’t it know it…

PerryJ;
I was a Protestant and am now a Catholic. It is totally untrue that Protestant know the Bible better than Catholics. This rumor was made up by Protestants.

I don’t know how you got this from what i wrote above. In terms of who knows the Bible better i was reading a study somewhere that Protestants know it a little bit better than Catholics. This is not something to boast about since the percentage was so low in both cases.

In addition we not only know it we understand it. Anyone that reads the Bible and does not believe in the Eucharist can’t know the Bible. (Admittedly not all Protestants deny the Eucharist; however, most do not understand it.)

How does this follow? Just because a person doesn’t believe in the Eucharist the same way a Catholic does does not mean that the protestant or whomever can’t have a greater understanding of it if they are doing the hard study to know it. Its like anything else. You have to work at to understand it and master it.

You can not find anything the Catholics teach that is not in harmony with Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t even get started before it starts making false claims.

I can think of about a dozen things that show otherwise. I was on a thread on the perpetural virginity of Mary and those who adhere to Sola Scriptura won that discussion hands down…

Turning away from the threads statement will not help. We have been posting for days and you still can not show any proof of Sola Scriptura.

Lets look for examples of it in the Scriptures themselves. When Jesus was being tempted by satan in the wilderness did He refute the devil with traditions or Jewish authority? Or did He use the Scriptures alone?

When Peter speaks of growing our salvation in I Peter 2:2 does he exhort us to pursue traditions or to grow in respect to the Scripture?

When the psalmist speaks of keeping our ways pure in Psalm 119:9 does he exhort us to pursue traditions or by keeping the Scriptrues?

 

[PerryJ]

How does this follow? Just because a person doesn’t believe in the Eucharist the same way a Catholic does does not mean that the protestant or whomever can’t have a greater understanding of it if they are doing the hard study to know it. Its like anything else. You have to work at to understand it and master it.

I can think of about a dozen things that show otherwise. I was on a thread on the perpetural virginity of Mary and those who adhere to Sola Scriptura won that discussion hands down…

This first point make no sense. If one doesn’t understand the Eucharist one can not fully understand Christ. The entire Bible is driven forward to Christ’s salvation and the Eucharist. They can not be separated as they are the focal point of the Bible and Christ’s teachings. As a Protestant I did not understand the Eucharist and as such did not understand the Bible. The difference is vast once one knows what the Eucharist is and how it flows throughout the Bible.

I would think Catholics would believe that you didn’t win the debate. I have never seen Sola Scriptura win any discussion because it isn’t Biblical.

Of course the bigger issue is that one needs to understand Christ.

 

[abucs]

Is this not the problem with sola scriptura ?
If half of the Christians read the bible and see the Eucharist and the other half doesn’t, then sola scriptura can’t make sense.
There is obviously more going on here than sola scriptura.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4162414]This first point make no sense. If one doesn’t understand the Eucharist one can not fully understand Christ. The entire Bible is driven forward to Christ’s salvation and the Eucharist. They can not be separated as they are the focal point of the Bible and Christ’s teachings. As a Protestant I did not understand the Eucharist and as such did not understand the Bible. The difference is vast once one knows what the Eucharist is and how it flows throughout the Bible.

Can you give me a couple of examples by what you mean when you write–“if one doesn’t understand the Eucharist one can not fully understand Christ”?

I would think Catholics would believe that you didn’t win the debate. I have never seen Sola Scriptura win any discussion because it isn’t Biblical

.
Give it time and we’ll see.

Of course the bigger issue is that one needs to understand Christ.

Can one understand Christ without a thorough understanding of the Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

abucs;4163817]Is this not the problem with sola scriptura ?
If half of the Christians read the bible and see the Eucharist and the other half doesn’t, then sola scriptura can’t make sense.

How does this follow? Please give me some examples from Scripture that supports this claim.

There is obviously more going on here than sola scriptura.

No doubt.

 

[abucs]

Is it not a basic exercise in logic ?
If half the Christians see the Eucharist in the bible and the other half doesn’t, then how can a ‘sola scriptura’ be a way of deciding things ?

 

[justasking4]

Is it not a basic exercise in logic ?
If half the Christians see the Eucharist in the bible and the other half doesn’t, then how can a ‘sola scriptura’ be a way of deciding things ?

The problem would not be with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself but with how people think. Just because people may make mistakes in math does not mean that there is something wrong with mathematical principles. We could also apply your reasoning to catholic teachings. Do you believe the teachings of the catholic church are wrong because there are catholics who don’t understand them or missapply them?

 

[abucs]

The problem would not be with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself but with how people think. Just because people may make mistakes in math does not mean that there is something wrong with mathematical principles. We could also apply your reasoning to catholic teachings. Do you believe the teachings of the catholic church are wrong because there are catholics who don’t understand them or missapply them?

Yes but in your example are you not deciding who is thinking rightly, and who is thinking wrongly ?
Cannot I, for example, decide someone else is right and you are wrong ?
Who has authority there to decide ? Who has the authority to decide who has the authority ?
With the bible alone there is no process for that except the personal view that says - I am reading it rightly and because of that I have the authority.
This is extremely arbitrary and the vast number of people who claim that authority personally disagree on many aspects of the bible.

If you take the example of maths, before we start we have to agree on the principles and rules of mathematics.
We do not get the example of half the world thinking the answer to a mathematical problem is one thing and the other half of the world thinking the answer is something else.

I don’t believe that is a good analogy simply because with the bible we have to agree on the interpretation before we can apply it’s teachings.
It is clear that unlike mathematics, there is no agreement on its interpretation.

I think also your analogy of ‘my reasoning’ towards the Catholic church is not a good one.

It is neither right nor wrong because one or more people disagree with it.

In theory, the Catholic church could provide authoratative teachings on the bible because it has a structure of who speaks for it and under what circumstances certain teachings should be adherred to and an authority that can respond ‘in real time’ to specific and changing questions. It can decide which of conflicting biblical ideas has precedence and which are appropriate to be applied to certain circumstances. There is no structure for the bible to do that - alone.

In theory Justasking4, you also could provide a similar authoratative teachings because you also have a structure (you) and a process for interpreting (your thoughts).

Your structure however is temporary on this earth (and ends with your life) and of course your authority to speak has to be accepted by others.
People will have different criteria on accepting or rejecting your claims of authority.

The problem with sola scripture is that there is no universal, unifying structure, no process (very unlike mathematics) and everyone claims that authority for themselves.

That does not make sense to me and instead of a Covenant between God and his people we get a replacement Covenant between God and me.
Because there is so much disagreement among Christians who read the same bible, it appears that this type of covenant over time is vulnerable to become more about ME and MY interpretations and less about God.

That is how it appears to me.

 

[justasking4]

Yes but in your example are you not deciding who is thinking rightly, and who is thinking wrongly ?
Cannot I, for example, decide someone else is right and you are wrong ?
Who has authority there to decide ? Who has the authority to decide who has the authority ?
With the bible alone there is no process for that except the personal view that says - I am reading it rightly and because of that I have the authority.
This is extremely arbitrary and the vast number of people who claim that authority personally disagree on many aspects of the bible.

If you take the example of maths, before we start we have to agree on the principles and rules of mathematics.
We do not get the example of half the world thinking the answer to a mathematical problem is one thing and the other half of the world thinking the answer is something else.

I don’t believe that is a good analogy simply because with the bible we have to agree on the interpretation before we can apply it’s teachings.
It is clear that unlike mathematics, there is no agreement on its interpretation.

I think also your analogy of ‘my reasoning’ towards the Catholic church is also not a good one.

It is neither right nor wrong because one or more people disagree with it.

In theory, the Catholic church could provide authoratative teachings on the bible because it has a structure of who speaks for it and under what circumstances certain teachings should be adherred to and an authority that can respond ‘in real time’ to specific and changing questions. It can decide which of conflicting biblical ideas has precedence and which are appropriate to be applied to certain circumstances. There is no structure for the bible to do that - alone.

In theory Justasking4, you also could provide correct authoratative teachings because you also have a structure (you) and a process for interpreting (your thoughts).

Your structure however is temporary on this earth (and ends with your life) and of course your authority to speak has to be accepted by others.
People will have different criteria on accepting or rejecting your claims of authority.

The problem with sola scripture is that there is no structure, no process (very unlike mathematics) and everyone claims that authority for themselves.

That does not make sense to me and instead of a Covenant between God and his people we get a replacement Covenant between God and me.
Because there is so much disagreement among Christians who read the same bible, it appears that this type of covenant over time is vulnerable to become more about ME and MY interpretations and less about God.

That is how it appears to me.

What you are saying about me here i.e. my own interpretations is exactly what you must do with everything your church teaches. Are you aware for example that the Catholic church has offically-infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? This means that when you read the Scriptures you are interpreting and you have no way to check to see if you are interpreting correctly. No one in your church can tell you what the offical interpretation on those thousands of verses that have never been interpreted offically.

The same goes for church teachings. This is what happens when you rely on an infallible interpreter. I sure wish there was one.

 

[abucs]

What you are saying about me here i.e. my own interpretations is exactly what you must do with everything your church teaches. Are you aware for example that the Catholic church has offically-infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? This means that when you read the Scriptures you are interpreting and you have no way to check to see if you are interpreting correctly. No one in your church can tell you what the offical interpretation on those thousands of verses that have never been interpreted offically.

The same goes for church teachings. This is what happens when you rely on an infallible interpreter. I sure wish there was one.

Yes, but i think the Church is simply being honest.
There is much leeway in the interpretations of the bible and only a few passages have been infallibly interpreted because that is the nature of the writings that have been handed on.

That doesn’t mean of course that the church doesn’t honestly give their opinions on many passages. They give their thoughts on those writings but those writings are only ONe source of instruction.

The bible came from the church, it was written by people in the church.

We don’t think (and Jesus didn’t say) that authority rests in the new testament writings that would be written after his ascension.

The writers of the NT were bishops of the churches they founded (or scribes of such bishops).

Being so close to Jesus (as man on earth) they are extremely important.

But the authority of those writings come from their place in the Church of Christ. those writings are one strand of instruction.
The writings alone do not have the structure to create a Church IMHO. It is not the role of the New testament (as it evolved and was canonised) to create a functional church.

It is there for a testament to the doings and sayings of Christ and his followers, how they were received and what the elders of the early Church thought about that period.

The Church is based on Christ, the bible is a testament to that Christ. They go together IMHO.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

ILets look for examples of it in the Scriptures themselves. When Jesus was being tempted by satan in the wilderness did He refute the devil with traditions or Jewish authority? Or did He use the Scriptures alone?

and what did Satan use?

When Peter speaks of growing our salvation in I Peter 2:2 does he exhort us to pursue traditions or to grow in respect to the Scripture?

Read St. Peter’s warning in II Peter 3:16-7, 1:19-21 before you answer.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Can you give me a couple of examples by what you mean when you write–“if one doesn’t understand the Eucharist one can not fully understand Christ”?

.
Give it time and we’ll see.

Can one understand Christ without a thorough understanding of the Scriptures?

Many people were saints, and utterly illiterate, as the majority of Christians (and everyone else) until recently.

 

[justasking4]

Isa Almisry;4164309]and what did Satan use?

He used the Scriptures also. He never appeals to a tradition. Notice how Jesus used the Scriptures in context.

Read St. Peter’s warning in II Peter 3:16-7, 1:19-21 before you answer.

I did and i don’t see the connection. Can you clarify?

 

[guanophore]

Can you give me a couple of examples by what you mean when you write–“if one doesn’t understand the Eucharist one can not fully understand Christ”?

Jesus is the Living Bread that came down from heaven. Just as the Israelites survived by eating the manna that God provided them in the desert, so He intended for us to survive by consuming HImself in our desert.

Can one understand Christ without a thorough understanding of the Scriptures?

Obviously, since the Apostles did not have the NT, yet they understood HIm by the Power of the Spirit. There are many saints who have been illiterate, but understood Christ through the Teachings. God is not limited in HIs ability to reveal HImself to people.

However, those of us that do have the scripture need to avail ourselves of it, as it is said “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

How does this follow? Please give me some examples from Scripture that supports this claim.

This is well supported by all references that refer to the necessity of adhering to the Teaching that was given. It is this Sacred Tradition that provides the lens through which we understand what is written in the Scripture.

The problem would not be with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself but with how people think. Just because people may make mistakes in math does not mean that there is something wrong with mathematical principles. We could also apply your reasoning to catholic teachings. Do you believe the teachings of the catholic church are wrong because there are catholics who don’t understand them or missapply them?

Well, I think it is both. The problem with SS is exactly “how people think”. When the principle of SS is used, each person approaches the Scripture with their own perceptions and education (or lack therof). I agree about the math. It is the principles of math that are the foundation, just as it is the Sacred Tradition that frames the thinking, so that people can understand scripture as it is written. It is not the principles of Sacred Tradition that are wrong, but persons who have misused them.

You are right that the misapplication and misunderstanding of the Churches’ teaching does not make them wrong.

The problem with SS is that it is not the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. That is why it has to be rejected. Even a broken watch is right, twice a day.

What you are saying about me here i.e. my own interpretations is exactly what you must do with everything your church teaches.

I know you would like this to be the case, ja4, so that we can be on even footing. However, the truth is that those who are on the foundation of the Apostle’s teaching have a firmer footing than those that reject it.

Are you aware for example that the Catholic church has offically-infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures?

Indeed! Catholic Teaching is not based on “interpretation of the verses”. It is based on the person of Jesus. In fact, all of Catholic Teaching was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever written. Since our faith is based on a Person, rather than “verses” it is not necessary to parse these in the way that those limited to SS do.

This means that when you read the Scriptures you are interpreting and you have no way to check to see if you are interpreting correctly. No one in your church can tell you what the offical interpretation on those thousands of verses that have never been interpreted offically.

On the contrary, when we read, we wear the glasses of Sacred Tradition. Since we have received the Apostolic Teaching, we can understand every word that has been written in the light of it.

The same goes for church teachings. This is what happens when you rely on an infallible interpreter. I sure wish there was one.

Perhaps one day you will find Him? He is not confined to the pages of a book, but lives in His Body, the Church!

 

[Cinette]

One can explain Sola Scriptura until one is blue in the face:banghead: but it will never go away as long as there are Protestants. This has become a fact of life:whacky:

Maybe if non-Catholics learned the history of the Church they might begin to understand

On second thoughts perhaps I should correct myself and instead of saying Protestants I should say Fundamentalists

It would also help if certain non-Catholics stopped looking at Catholics as if we were :bigyikes: from another planet. We are exactly like them - just normal human beings.

At Mass this morning our priest told us that towards the end of his life St John repeated himself constantly and told people he met everywhere one thing: - love one another - love one another, love one another

Love… Love makes the world go round……

 

[PerryJ]

What you are saying about me here i.e. my own interpretations is exactly what you must do with everything your church teaches. Are you aware for example that the Catholic church has offically-infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? This means that when you read the Scriptures you are interpreting and you have no way to check to see if you are interpreting correctly. No one in your church can tell you what the offical interpretation on those thousands of verses that have never been interpreted offically.

The same goes for church teachings. This is what happens when you rely on an infallible interpreter. I sure wish there was one.

The Catholic Church’s teachings are based upon the whole Bible. (Of course including tradition etc.) We do not interpet the Bible one verse at a time. That is why our more complex doctrines such as areas concerning Mary are lost by Protestants.