Sola scriptura challenge

[caoimhin]

Point of order Chairman:

I’m not a protestant.

I dont belong to any church.

Im not even baptised.

My bad. I just assumed that you had some presumptive basis to correct my understanding of Protestant churches I have been involved with for a quarter century.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

My bad. I just assumed that you had some presumptive basis to correct my understanding of Protestant churches I have been involved with for a quarter century.

I have

But I dont need to belong to a church to do so

One question - when youve brillantly established that nowhere in the bible does it say what books should be in the bible, the scriptures do not give a list of contents, the bible can be seen as full of contradictions without proper interpretation, St. Peter (I think) sitting helping the guy interpret as it was necessary, and so on - what then?

 

[BrianH]

In my time and travels I have been involved in several evangelical churches. I have also served as a church elder and adult Sunday School teacher. What I have characterized as sola scriptura is consistent with how each of my former churches taught and understood it. If you want to designate yourself as some sort of Protestant pope and decree which understanding of *sola scriptura *is the correct one, as I said start your own thread.

My challenge is posed honestly. Please stop trying to divert the topic of this thread.

! And this is how you guys (you may be swimming brother but I think you reached the shore already) treat someone who has a foot in the Tiber already based on his posts:shrug:

Go figure…

 

[ricmat]

One question - when youve brillantly established that nowhere in the bible does it say what books should be in the bible, the scriptures do not give a list of contents, the bible can be seen as full of contradictions without proper interpretation, St. Peter (I think) sitting helping the guy interpret as it was necessary, and so on - what then?

Indeed - what you’ve just summarized above may be news to many people. “What then” depends on those people.

Give the OP a break.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

So all Protestants and all Protestant churches define Sola Scriptura as your churches did?

 In my experience and my training in apologetics, I have found one particularly glaring truth. There is no consistent definition of anything when dealing with protestants. They can not even agree on the definition of sola scriptura. Many can not even commit to the idea they claim to believe in without claiming some dependence on some tradition. Most constantly make up their own interpretation of tradition and scripture. From what I can see it is a constant redefining of doctrine and the sin of pride working over time that is the only constant in protestant interpretation and tradition.
  Furthermore, the first piece of scripture quoted on this thread disproves sola scriptura. That is 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is** the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." ** It doesn't say scripture is the foundation or ground and pillar of faith. It say "the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church was there before the scripture because it was there at the moment of the first Last Supper and there at the Crucifixion of our Lord and it came to fruition at his Resurrection.  When the majority of people were unable to read, how would the faith progress if most couldn't read? The Church is the vehicle for the propagation of the faith.

Finally, returning to the quote in question, there is no unity among the protestant denominations because of their refusal to acknowledge what the scripture says. Some say that sola scriptura means Bible and Bible only. But others will say traditions are needed to interpret the scripture but if there is anything even remotely roman or Catholic about those traditions it is wrong… just because.

 

[NotTooSmart]

 In my experience and my training in apologetics, I have found one particularly glaring truth. There is no consistent definition of anything when dealing with protestants.

Well for my short time in this forum, I also have found one particularly glaring truth. That is that Catholics disagree amongst themselves.

They can not even agree on the definition of sola scriptura.

I won’t bother to repeat what I have learned that Catholics can not even agree on.

Many can not even commit to the idea they claim to believe in without claiming some dependence on some tradition. Most constantly make up their own interpretation of tradition and scripture.

Well I have learned that Catholics make up their own interpretation of their own Catechism.

BTW I am just illustrating that the same “logic” you use to tar “Protestants” can easily be used back at you.

From what I can see it is a constant redefining of doctrine and the sin of pride working over time that is the only constant in protestant interpretation and tradition.

You know at this point, maybe I will not go to your level and charge “sin” against you.,

  Furthermore, the first piece of scripture quoted on this thread disproves sola scriptura. That is 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is** the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." ** It doesn't say scripture is the foundation or ground and pillar of faith. It say "the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church was there before the scripture because it was there at the moment of the first Last Supper and there at the Crucifixion of our Lord and it came to fruition at his Resurrection.  When the majority of people were unable to read, how would the faith progress if most couldn't read? The Church is the vehicle for the propagation of the faith.

Finally, returning to the quote in question, there is no unity among the protestant denominations because of their refusal to acknowledge what the scripture says. Some say that sola scriptura means Bible and Bible only. But others will say traditions are needed to interpret the scripture but if there is anything even remotely roman or Catholic about those traditions it is wrong… just because.

Sola Scriptura is a two word latin phrase without a verb. It is impossible for two word phrases to be proved or disproved. If you want to disprove something, you first must define what exactly it is you are trying to disprove. Then you must make your case so there is no way what you are trying to disprove is possible.

That is more difficult than it seems. Just quoting one Scripture and asserting that it disproves a two word latin phrase without a verb proves absolutely nothing except that you really don’t understand what “prove” means.

But anyway this is not all of that interesting and quite irrelevant to me. I hold Sola Scriptura as a practice, not a doctrine, anyway.

 

[Reuben_J]

Apparently Nottoosmart and Guyonthestreet belong to Protestant churches that define it a bit differently. This poses them with a bit of a problem.

…

Recently this forum included religion besides date of joining and number of posts as information given for members.

It would be helpful if members include their specific religions so that we can learn more what your religion believes and teaches. This also avoid the impression that you are hiding behind a facade of anonymity with dubious intention. That unfortunately was the impression on GuyOnTheStreet at one time here. So a bit of transparency will help in many ways and allow us to avoid the guessing game.

Sorry if this sounds offensive but I only hope to be helpful.

God bless.

 

[BrianH]

Recently this forum included religion besides date of joining and number of posts as information given for members.

It would be helpful if members include their specific religions so that we can learn more what your religion believes and teaches. This also avoid the impression that you are hiding behind a facade of anonymity with dubious intention. That unfortunately was the impression on GuyOnTheStreet at one time here. So a bit of transparency will help in many ways and allow us to avoid the guessing game.

Sorry if this sounds offensive but I only hope to be helpful.

God bless.

It is not helpful. I jogged my memory by looking at the first posts and the more recent thread and it served my correctly. GOTS has consistently said they are interested in the Catholic Church but have reservations.
Saying someone has dubious intention is always offensive unless you have a very good reason to support that.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is not helpful. I jogged my memory by looking at the first posts and the more recent thread and it served my correctly. GOTS has consistently said they are interested in the Catholic Church but have reservations.
Saying someone has dubious intention is always offensive unless you have a very good reason to support that.

I didn’t say it myself but I remember the posts about it. It is obviously not helpful for the OP of this thread not knowing what denominations you (I mean not you) are from. So I thought putting up our specific denominations would help. There are too many denominations within Protestantism, to me it will help tremendously if I know which one they come from, at least for my own personal knowledge. Unless you do not want to put up your denomination or like GOTS who does not have one (probably), then nobody will force you to; but to do it will be nice. That’s all I can say about it. To me, it will help.

 

[Reuben_J]

I didn’t say it myself but I remember the posts about it. It is obviously not helpful for the OP of this thread not knowing what denominations you (I mean not you) are from. So I thought putting up our specific denominations would help. There are too many denominations within Protestantism, to me it will help tremendously if I know which one they come from, at least for my own personal knowledge. Unless you do not want to put up your denomination or like GOTS who does not have one (probably), then nobody will force you to; but to do it will be nice. That’s all I can say about it. To me, it will help.

We are all Christians. To put Christian as a denomination can be very general because if we are all Christians then why are we so different in out belief?

To be more specific, I am a Roman Catholic and you are United Methodist. Then there Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals. There are more. Many of us Catholics are not too familiar what different Protestant denominations believe respectively. As a result we can address the wrong person. Who are the Sola Scripture, who are the Bible only Christians, and so on?

God bless you.

 

[NotTooSmart]

We are all Christians. To put Christian as a denomination can be very general because if we are all Christians then why are we so different in out belief?

To be more specific, I am a Roman Catholic and you are United Methodist. Then there Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals. There are more. Many of us Catholics are not too familiar what different Protestant denominations believe respectively. As a result we can address the wrong person. Who are the Sola Scripture, who are the Bible only Christians, and so on?

God bless you.

Not a bad idea.

Although in fairness, “religion” (or something like that) is posed as a question when you register. What you answer at that time becomes what appears on your posts. You have to make the effort to edit your profile to change that. So when I registered, I just put down Christian because I consider myself a Christian first and whatever group/denomination I am associated with second.

So suggestion taken.

 

[Reuben_J]

Not a bad idea.

Although in fairness, “religion” (or something like that) is posed as a question when you register. What you answer at that time becomes what appears on your posts. You have to make the effort to edit your profile to change that. So when I registered, I just put down Christian because I consider myself a Christian first and whatever group/denomination I am associated with second.

So suggestion taken.

Thank you for being open and gracious about it. It is not so much that I am against not stating your religion as I recognize this a personal choice other than that it will help the poster whom you are discussing with. It was OK for you to state yourself as Christian or no religion when you are only asking or wanting to know about another religion. But when you take a stand, I would like to know who I am talking about so that I can adjust my reply accordingly. Just imagine how ackward it would be for me to lecture you on a topic where you are already an expert at, not knowing that you are in that particular denomination.

Moreover, if I want to delve further into a belief of another denomination I would like to speak with one from that denomination. Not that it is useless to argue with someone on a topic who is not from that denomination, but in more difficult case it will be like a blind leading a blind; an exercise in futility.

God bless you.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Thank you for being open and gracious about it. It is not so much that I am against not stating your religion as I recognize this a personal choice other than that it will help the poster whom you are discussing with. It was OK for you to state yourself as Christian or no religion when you are only asking or wanting to know about another religion. But when you take a stand, I would like to know who I am talking about so that I can adjust my reply accordingly. Just imagine how ackward it would be for me to lecture you on a topic where you are already an expert at, not knowing that you are in that particular denomination.

Moreover, if I want to delve further into a belief of another denomination I would like to speak with one from that denomination. Not that it is useless to argue with someone on a topic who is not from that denomination, but in more difficult case it will be like a blind leading a blind; an exercise in futility.

God bless you.

Sure!

You have my empathy on that one.

Since your apologists claim we have anywhere from 30,000 to a gazillion denominations, each one with different doctrine, it must be a tough challenge to keep up with all 30,000 of them.

 

[frnate]

Fair enough - but it’s one of 50 threads exactly the same. Im not sure what new angles you think you can bring out - is there no more creativity left in challenging protestants.

I hope I’m not stepping on caoimhin’s toes but I think I know at least one angle. It’s the old adage about the horse and the water. I’ll paraphrase: “You can lead Protestants to springs of living water but they won’t drink as long as they think its poisoned.” Doesn’t mean we should give up.

+N

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

Well for my short time in this forum, I also have found one particularly glaring truth. That is that Catholics disagree amongst themselves.
[/SIGN]
I won’t bother to repeat what I have learned that Catholics can not even agree on.

True Catholics are all in line and believe the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. It is the corner stone of the faith to submit to the authority of the Church. Those who are not in line with the teachings of the Church are anathema are not truly members of the Church.

Well I have learned that Catholics make up their own interpretation of their own Catechism.

If a Catholic is making up their own interpretation of the catechism, they are not Catholic. It is clear and concise because it is such an important explanation of the faith and A Catholic is not at liberty to make up his own interpretation of the Catechism. It is simply wrong. submission to the teaching authority of the Church is required to be catholic.

BTW I am just illustrating that the same “logic” you use to tar “Protestants” can easily be used back at you.

You know at this point, maybe I will not go to your level and charge “sin” against you.,

Sola Scriptura is a two word latin phrase without a verb. It is impossible for two word phrases to be proved or disproved. If you want to disprove something, you first must define what exactly it is you are trying to disprove. Then you must make your case so there is no way what you are trying to disprove is possible.

I see I struck a nerve when I mention that it is prideful to invent your own interpretation of scripture. Well how is it not prideful to take something that was well established in liturgical understanding and (small t) tradition and to all of a sudden say. “HMMM well I don’t like these books from the Bible, they can’t be right even though they’ve been there for several hundred years… nah that shouldn’t be in there.” or “hey i can read, i’m capable of making up my own interpretation of something.” Gee lets look at contemporary American Politics. It seems to me that the second amendment to the Constitution is fairly simple to understand. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " But wait… what are these words militia and regulated? Does that mean the militia is the only ones with the guns? No because the militia is made up of all men of legal age. Militia are groups of citizens who are able to but not always called upon to carry arms for the state. The militia is not the National Guard. But do you see how words can be parsed and twisted from the original intent? Now lets see the word games that can be played when a work has been translated several times between many languages and over 2000 years. Language changes. The teaching authority of the Church exists to remove any ambiguity so the original meaning of the text can be made apparent to the readers.

That is more difficult than it seems. Just quoting one Scripture and asserting that it disproves a two word latin phrase without a verb proves absolutely nothing except that you really don’t understand what “prove” means.

Since you want me to disprove something, here goes. Because of the refusal to submit to the teaching and interpretive authority of the Church, the protestants have separated themselves partially if not completely from the Body of Christ. “He who denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.” That is Luke 12:9 there is also 2 Tim 12 “But if we deny him he will deny us.” How can one say they accept Christ but reject his messengers?

The tradition and actual teachings of Christ were in practice decades before the scriptures were codified and placed together. By separating from that authority of the Church as it was founded, a person separates him or herself from the Body of Christ.

But anyway this is not all of that interesting and quite irrelevant to me. I hold Sola Scriptura as a practice, not a doctrine, anyway.

If Sola Scriputra is not a doctrine but a practice, why hold onto it. Isn’t that one of those traditions of men that Christ and the Apostles warned against?

What are words? Words are a vehicle for the conveyance of meaning. Sola Scriptura is a two word phrase that translated means scripture alone. In

If words are not what they seem what are they? How do you claim that the words Sola scriptura don’t form the premise for the protestant fail? The Scripture wasn’t around until hundreds of years after the Ascension of Christ. Before that time were all the early Christians living in sin? And who is more qualified to interpret scripture, the learned men whom have spent their whole lives reading and learning how to interpret it or some average guy who is barely functionally literate?

 

[NotTooSmart]

If Sola Scriputra is not a doctrine but a practice, why hold onto it. Isn’t that one of those traditions of men that Christ and the Apostles warned against?

It would be if how I practice Sola Scriptura can be proven to be Biblically false.

What are words? Words are a vehicle for the conveyance of meaning. Sola Scriptura is a two word phrase that translated means scripture alone. In

It is a two word phrase without any verbs or objects. So the first question I have is what is the verb in this phrase. “can”, “will”, "has been written’?

So I might guess the applicable word might be “is”. Then what are the objects

Scripture alone is all that is necessary for a Christian?? Oh goodie, then I can shack up in my camp in Montana, just me 'n my Bible and be a successful Christian.

Hmm, somehow, I don’t think that is the meaning of that phrase.

So Scripture alone in relationship to exactly what? From this phrase I honestly dunno. Do you?

If words are not what they seem what are they? How do you claim that the words Sola scriptura don’t form the premise for the protestant fail? The Scripture wasn’t around until hundreds of years after the Ascension of Christ. Before that time were all the early Christians living in sin? And who is more qualified to interpret scripture, the learned men whom have spent their whole lives reading and learning how to interpret it or some average guy who is barely functionally literate?

Hmm. Maybe under somebodys definition of Sola Scriptura these are applicable questions. If so, ask him. But under how I practice it, they are quite irrelevant.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sure!

You have my empathy on that one.

Since your apologists claim we have anywhere from 30,000 to a gazillion denominations, each one with different doctrine, it must be a tough challenge to keep up with all 30,000 of them.

That is exactly my point. I want to hear from you as to what you are not from my apologists.

I will be convinced if the 30,000 or so different denominations believe and practice the same doctrines but if that is so, why the different denominations then? Even if it is 30 different denominations, why 30? Why not just one since if all of you believe in Sola Scriptural, why not just one denomination?

I am sincerely in a dark about this. I don’t talk about this with my Protestant friends; I don’t know they don’t bring it up and I suppose I don’t want to bring it up for fear perhaps it is not up for discussion among friends. But hey, you can’t blame me for my ignorance on this. There are Protestants who still think that our priests forgive sin and we worship Mary.

If I perceive that you hide in a façade trying to look as one homogonous Christians while in actual fact you are in denominations, it does not serve your cause in my eyes that you are not denominated.

BTW, in my prayer today I was contemplating on this passage 1Thes 2:1-6 which is the first reading of a Catholic Mass today. What strikes me as I was remembering this issue is verses 2-3, Although, as you know, we had received rough treatment and insults at Philippi, God gave us the courage to speak his gospel to you fearlessly, in spite of great opposition. Our encouragement to you does not come from any delusion or impure motives or trickery.

I am not imputing that posters who are not transparent have impure motive, but then what the heck, we are Christians. We have nothing to hide, we are honest and we are courageous to state what we believe and to declare who we are, because that courage comes from God in whom we believe.

Alright, enough of digression. Back to the OP.

God bless you.

 

[Peter_J]

We are all Christians. To put Christian as a denomination can be very general because if we are all Christians then why are we so different in out belief?

I would say that anyone calling Christianity a “denomination” is flat-out wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

You asked question

I answered. See post 2.

I don’t get the point.

True you did answer the question. However, there are a lot of Protestants who are shocked by that answer – consider this excerpt from Scott Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home:

I asked another theologian, “What for you is the pillar and foundation of truth?”

He said, “The Bible, of course!”

“Then why does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?”

“You set me up, Scott!”

 

[NotTooSmart]

True you did answer the question. However, there are a lot of Protestants who are shocked by that answer – consider this excerpt from Scott Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home:

I asked another theologian, “What for you is the pillar and foundation of truth?”

He said, “The Bible, of course!”

“Then why does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?”

“You set me up, Scott!”

Well, in all fairness, I happened to know ahead of time that this verse is your prooftext against Sola Scriptura.

And since it really proves nothing (unless you hold to a very warped definition of Sola Scriptura), I really have no problem in reciting it back to you.

It is after all, God’s Holy Written Word.