Sola scriptura challenge

[Anthony_Joseph]

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.

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.

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.

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

There is a major distinction between what a catholic who is in communion with the Church and one who holds beliefs that are considered anathema to the teachings of the Church. Teachings on lesser issues are open for debate. Teachings on major moral and theological issues are not open to debate. As a Non-Catholic I can’t expect you to have any belief in the Real Presence or the perpetual virginity of Mary. But to be Catholic is to accept these and many other teachings. If they are not accepted, those rejecting these doctrines are anathema and are encouraged to return to the Church. Therefore, you can not say that there are Catholics who disagree with the tenants of the faith. Because to be Catholic means to accept all the tenants of the Faith. Furthermore, a Catholic who makes up his own interpretation of the Catechism is also anathema because of his holding of beliefs that are in contradiction to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Your “logic” is flawed because you do not understand that to be catholic is to accept the teaching and authority of the Church with humility and joy.

You need not consider it descending to change me with a sin. I know I’m a sinner and “he who corrects me is my friend”, to quote my College freshman rhetoric professor. But I still think it is pride on the part of a protestant to think that they have a better interpretation of the Holy Bible than the Early Church Fathers. Have you ever read any of their works? I highly recommended a book to you, Documents of the Christian Church by Henry Bettenson. It is a compilation of many of the early documents. And since the protestants didn’t come about until the second half of the second millennium after Christ, they should be unobjectionable to you if you can maintain academic and intellectual honesty.

To address your point about Sola Scriptura being a phrase. So is “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.” Now Sola Scriptura is a more concise term. It was Luther’s “battle cry”. It means that faith should only be interpreted with the sole support of scripture. Yet how can scripture be understood to be true or accurate without a governing body to determine what it says? there is a legal system in the US to determine what our laws mean and they are always fighting about what our own language means. Now how is the “plow boy” to understand what the language of people from 2000 years ago means? There was an established line (apostolic succession) for the teaching and interpreting of the scripture. Unless someone is trained in understanding the scripture in the original language, how can it be understood in the vernacular without the aid of a teacher? Look at the fighting about the Chair of Peter. Is his name Petras, Petra, Sefas, what is it? because there are different meanings attached to Petras and Petra. Untrained laity can not accurately interpret scripture and do thus cause people to go astray and endanger themselves.

Furthermore, where does it say that salvation comes only from the scripture in the Bible? Please find it?

Could you please answer for me how you differentiate practice from doctrine?

I do offer my apologies for thinking you could follow my train of though. You seem like you know how to debate but not listen Mr NotTooSmart.

 

[Fisher]

When a Christian has questions concerning his faith, he turns to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, and seeks answers. Guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit – the same Holy Spirit Rome claims guides the membership of her Magisterium and protects her from doctrinal error – the diligent believer will discover God’s truth. The Scriptures reveal those things necessary for salvation and are the sole infallible rule of faith.

How much more difficult for the Roman Catholic faithful, who must seek guidance and answers from a multitude of sources grouped under three general headings:

“[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Pius IX, Dei Filius, Chap. 3, 1st Vatican Council, Session III, April 24, 1870 [Denzinger 1792])

What are these truths, these dogma, that are divinely revealed and why is it necessary that Catholics assent to all of them?

**“So a dogma is a truth revealed by God (divine faith), and proposed as such by the Magisterium of the Church as necessary for belief (Catholic faith). It is binding on all of the faithful. Hence, our affirmation of and belief in dogmas of the Faith as necessary for salvation. To deny one dogma of the Church is to deny the authority of God who revealed it. Our Lord Jesus declared to His chosen representatives: “He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me.” (Lk. 10:10). To deny the very authority of God is to deny God Himself; and no one can be saved, that is, no one can enter Heaven, who denies God. This is why our affirmation of and belief in any and every dogma is necessary for salvation.” (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 1) **
How can Catholics know what they are to believe? Sure, they can turn to the Bible, but in this they risk being guided by teachings in the many non-canonical books mingled with inspired writings in the Catholic version of the Bible. There is no easily-accessible compilation of those traditions that every Catholic is required to believe. I suppose the closest thing to such a collection might be Jacques Pierre Migne’s Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca (161 volumes in Greek) and Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina (221 volumes in Latin). Then there are the Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum (88 volumes in Latin) and The Catholic Edition of the Early Church Fathers (some 20,000 pages and 50,000 notes). These collections contain thousands of documents written by Church fathers and others, including what might be considered official RCC sources. But how can one be assured, even if he is able to read and understand all these hundreds of books, that they contain every tradition he is required to believe?

Then there is the seemingly insurmountable problem of keeping up with the output of the Magisterium, whether in solemn pronouncement or in her “ordinary and universal teaching power.” Discovering and keeping up with solemn pronouncements is difficult enough – few Catholic apologists that I am aware of seem to agree on the number of such dogmatic pronouncements – but how does one stay abreast of the day-by-day teachings of the ordinary Magisterium?

**Define what the ordinary Magisterium is and how it functions: The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared. All of these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.” (Donald Attwater, Ed., A Catholic Dictionary, The MacMillan Company:New York (1942), p. 319; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur) **

Discovering all the dogmatic definitions issued by the Roman Catholic Church is difficult but there are books available that can help the seeker. I have found Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and Henry Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma to be particularly useful in this respect. I am not aware of any definitive collection of those traditions to which Catholic faithful are required to assent by faith and so can only surmise that their discovery must involve reading thousands of pages of Catholic source documents.

The difficulties involved in determining the content of Catholic dogma and traditions that are binding on members of that cult are quite formidable but are as nothing when compared to the near impossibility of identifying those teachings of the ordinary Magisterium that require de fide assent. There are a multitude of sources for these infallible teachings and many of them involve ongoing processes. The task is so complex that, according to the above definition, each source must be studied apart from the others “to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.” How in the world is the individual Roman Catholic – and in particular those who lack formal training and/or resources necessary for such a search – to be in conformance to all that Rome teaches and requires?

Not to worry. As in just about everything she demands of those who wear her chains, Rome has provided an escape clause – invincible ignorance.

“The absence of knowledge in one in whom such knowledge could be present is ignorance. In moral and Church law, ignorance affects the imputability of actions, the validity, or the censures to be incurred. Ignorance can be invincible, that is, irremovable. Invincible ignorance does not incur responsibility and does not alter the validity of an otherwise valid act… (Robert C. Broderick, Ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson Publishers:Nashville (1987), p. 284; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

I suppose what it all boils down to is that Roman Catholic faithful are required to assent to by faith all the dogma and teachings of the Roman Catholic Magisterium lest they lose their salvation. However, failing to believe what one does not know he must believe releases one from the consequences of not believing. Confusing, isn’t it?

All things necessary for salvation are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. No need to spend a lifetime searching for elusive and poorly elaborated dogmas, doctrines, practices and disciplines written in ancient languages and hidden away in dark corners of forgotten libraries. Open the Bible and read the Word of God. The truth is there and truth will set you free.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

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!”

I would have thought that a protestant theologian would have had a better answer than that.

 

[Fisher]

I would have thought that a protestant theologian would have had a better answer than that.

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.

1 Tim 3:15 (KJV)

the church called out Assembly—Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

the pillar from stuo (to stiffen; properly akin to the base of (histemi)); a post (“style”), i.e. (figurative) support :- pillar.
—Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

ground from a derivative of (hedraios); a support, i.e. (figurative) basis :- ground.
—Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

The truth is Jesus Christ and His Word The Church in the save in Christ who asemble together and keep His word.

 

[judechild]

You do not understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not dispense with either the church or traditions.

You are getting confused with Solo Scriptura - which most sola scripturists do not agree with.

Sorry if I break the flow of the thread a bit here, but what in the name of the saint of linguistics (there must be one) is “Solo Scriptura”? I’m no latin expert, but isn’t “Sola” just the feminine form of “Solo”, and therefore the same thing?

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

I was recently thinking of deleting my religious affiliation. Several times in discussions I was attacked about my affiliation when it had nothing to do with the subject at hand, or what I had said about the topic.

 

[Reuben_J]

When a Christian has questions concerning his faith, he turns to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, and seeks answers. Guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit – the same Holy Spirit Rome claims guides the membership of her Magisterium and protects her from doctrinal error – the diligent believer will discover God’s truth. The Scriptures reveal those things necessary for salvation and are the sole infallible rule of faith.

Sorry but I got stuck here. Needless to say, the same Holy Spirit seems to speak differently to different individual Christians on how to understand the word of God. I am not convinced whether I got it right if Harry,guided by yhte Holy Spirit, happens to understand the same verse differently. It is a problem to me.

All things necessary for salvation are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. No need to spend a lifetime searching for elusive and poorly elaborated dogmas, doctrines, practices and disciplines written in ancient languages and hidden away in dark corners of forgotten libraries. Open the Bible and read the Word of God. The truth is there and truth will set you free.

Same as above.

‘Things’ that are necessary for salvation have to be practiced and made tangible in a person’s life. Could it be possible that we see the ‘things’ differently?

God bless.

 

[NotTooSmart]

There is a major distinction between what a catholic who is in communion with the Church and one who holds beliefs that are considered anathema to the teachings of the Church. Teachings on lesser issues are open for debate. Teachings on major moral and theological issues are not open to debate. As a Non-Catholic I can’t expect you to have any belief in the Real Presence or the perpetual virginity of Mary. But to be Catholic is to accept these and many other teachings. If they are not accepted, those rejecting these doctrines are anathema and are encouraged to return to the Church. Therefore, you can not say that there are Catholics who disagree with the tenants of the faith. Because to be Catholic means to accept all the tenants of the Faith. Furthermore, a Catholic who makes up his own interpretation of the Catechism is also anathema because of his holding of beliefs that are in contradiction to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Your “logic” is flawed because you do not understand that to be catholic is to accept the teaching and authority of the Church with humility and joy.

So what I hear you saying is that Catholics agree on the big stuff but disagree on the small stuff. Well so do we as evangelical Protestants. So we are even here.

Now I won’t include liberal Protestants in for agreeing on the big stuff. But to be fair I won’t include Catholics for Free Choice and other liberal Catholics in for agreeing on the big stuff. Neither will I include cultish and other assorted groups. And for you I won’t include sedevacantists.

So as far as I can tell, we are still even.

You need not consider it descending to change me with a sin. I know I’m a sinner and “he who corrects me is my friend”, to quote my College freshman rhetoric professor. But I still think it is pride on the part of a protestant to think that they have a better interpretation of the Holy Bible than the Early Church Fathers. Have you ever read any of their works? I highly recommended a book to you, Documents of the Christian Church by Henry Bettenson. It is a compilation of many of the early documents. And since the protestants didn’t come about until the second half of the second millennium after Christ, they should be unobjectionable to you if you can maintain academic and intellectual honesty.

I have read some of their stuff. You can get it over ithe internet.

To address your point about Sola Scriptura being a phrase. So is “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.”

The difference being of course that Sola Scriptura is a noun and an adjective. Your phrase is a sentence with subject, verbs, and objects. I remember in 8th grade grammar that a sentence contains a complete thought. Anything less than a sentence is a fragment.

Now Sola Scriptura is a more concise term. It was Luther’s “battle cry”. It means that faith should only be interpreted with the sole support of scripture.

If that is what Luther meant, I am not sure Luther and I are in agreement. I will leave it to the Lutherans to tell me what I meant.

Yet how can scripture be understood to be true or accurate without a governing body to determine what it says?

Good. We are still cool. I go to church and am taught by teachers in the body of Christ. I am thankful that God didn;t leave me alone in my camp in Montana to figure out the Bible.

there is a legal system in the US to determine what our laws mean and they are always fighting about what our own language means. Now how is the “plow boy” to understand what the language of people from 2000 years ago means? There was an established line (apostolic succession) for the teaching and interpreting of the scripture. Unless someone is trained in understanding the scripture in the original language, how can it be understood in the vernacular without the aid of a teacher? Look at the fighting about the Chair of Peter. Is his name Petras, Petra, Sefas, what is it? because there are different meanings attached to Petras and Petra. Untrained laity can not accurately interpret scripture and do thus cause people to go astray and endanger themselves.

I sort of agree with you on some of this, and am not there yet on other parts of it.

Furthermore, where does it say that salvation comes only from the scripture in the Bible? Please find it?

It doesn’t as far as I can tell.

Could you please answer for me how you differentiate practice from doctrine?

Excellent question.

Well first of all, it means that I don’t have to spend 50 pages in a thread claiming that 2 Timothy 3:16 is the magic prooftext for Sola Scriptura. Maybe it is, but I am not there yet either.

What it does mean for me is this. Now follow my logic carefully here.

• When I became a Christian, I was led by the Holy Spirit to a local Charismatic Church in my home town.
• This church claimed that the Bible was the inspired word of God per 2 Timothy 3:16 and I believed it. I honestly can’t remember if it used that Scripture to justify Sola Scriptura but I don’t think so.
• The leadership of this church did not claim for itself that it was “incapable of being incorrect or anything like that”. Instead it taught from the Scriptures to the best of its ability and I received its teaching with humility as a New Christian should.
• Along the way, I have encountered claims that have contradicted the teaching of the church. As one who is told to “examine everything carefully and hold fast to what is good”, I examine these contrary claims in light of what I know to be the inspired Word of God per 2 Timothy 3:16.
• Along the way, I have also encountered alternate claims of authority, be they the book of Mormon, JW, you all, or prophet Joe in the next town over. Being told to “examine everything carefully”, I examine these alternate claims in light of what I know to be the inspired Word of God and find these alternate claims to be unconvincing.

Good question though.

I do offer my apologies for thinking you could follow my train of though. You seem like you know how to debate but not listen Mr NotTooSmart.

That is why I am NotTooSmart.

 

[NotTooSmart]

For the record, I am retiring from these forums for a time period.

In the thread “Why do some people think that Catholics do not know Jesus” I encountered a poster (Catholic) who was the epitome of rudeness and arrogance. To be honest, I am now just too upset to continue on with this.

So after I put this poster, I am retiring for a period of time.

Sorry, but I can take only so much.

 

[NeedImprovement]

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

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

.

One thing I can agree on is your choice of user name NotTooSmart - makes you and I appear that we’re coming from the same direction - doesn’t it ? … (maybe we’re cousins)

 

[colliric]

You do not understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not dispense with either the church or traditions.

You are getting confused with Solo Scriptura - which most sola scripturists do not agree with.

If this is so then the original understanding of Sola Scriptura must not have been sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura in it’s foundation was a doctrine that did dispense with the Church and Traditions. The question is what church did it dispense with? the answer of cause is the Catholic Church and it’s orthodox counterparts.

It was originally proported by, I believe, John Calvin as a clear alternative theology to the theology of the Catholic Faith. Luther did not desire the dispensation of the Catholic Church, he desired reform of the Church but when it came clear it just wasn’t going to happen, he became virulent and broke ties with the church, but he did not believe in Sola Scriptura himself considering his church essentially a continuation. However the other protestants of the time did desire total break with the Catholic Church, and they invented Sola Scriptura as a device to force a theological wedge between themselves and the Catholic Faith.

As I said, Calvin was I believe the main proponent. The church Sola Scriptura clearly dispensed with is the Catholic Church and it’s traditions. It did not dispense an idea of a “Church” and “traditions”, but it clearly does dispense delibratly with the Catholic Church and it’s Traditions.

 

[SyCarl]

If this is so then the original understanding of Sola Scriptura must not have been sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura in it’s foundation was a doctrine that did dispense with the Church and Traditions. The question is what church did it dispense with? the answer of cause is the Catholic Church and it’s orthodox counterparts.

It was originally proported by, I believe, John Calvin as a clear alternative theology to the theology of the Catholic Faith. Luther did not desire the dispensation of the Catholic Church, he desired reform of the Church but when it came clear it just wasn’t going to happen, he became virulent and broke ties with the church, but he did not believe in Sola Scriptura himself considering his church essentially a continuation. However the other protestants of the time did desire total break with the Catholic Church, and they invented Sola Scriptura as a device to force a theological wedge between themselves and the Catholic Faith.

As I said, Calvin was I believe the main proponent. The church Sola Scriptura clearly dispensed with is the Catholic Church and it’s traditions. It did not dispense an idea of a “Church” and “traditions”, but it clearly does dispense delibratly with the Catholic Church and it’s Traditions.

Have you ever read anything by Calvin and seen how much he referred to the Church Fathers?

 

[vindicated]

My Dear Guyonthestreet,

Sorry Charlie… there is no SOLO Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the latin designation given to the proposition of Father Martin Luther that Sacred Scripture ALONE is sufficient without recourse to either the Magisterial teaching of the Church or the Deposit of the Faith contained in Sacred Tradition.

 

[colliric]

Many protestant denominations recognise the need for and role of the church. They just dont agree that the church in question is the church of Rome.

Yes, this is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as it was originally devised and propogated by John Calvin. The desire was to alienate the Catholic Church, by claiming that the Bible was the sole or major authority of tradition and also that it is Infallible in terms of faith and morals. It delibratly drove a wedge between catholicism and protestantism by proving protestantism with a fundamentally diffrent theology.

It is a theology that denies that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and it’s Orthodox associates. It does not deny a “Church” and “Tradition”, but it specifically denies the Catholic Faith and is tailored to do so. It denies nearly all of Catholic tradition save for that which it needs to survive(such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity) and denies the Catholic faith.

 

[colliric]

Have you ever read anything by Calvin and seen how much he referred to the Church Fathers?

I just clarified myself in the previous post that the protestant theology of Sola Scriptura allowed protestants to accept if they desired, only the very early theology and some early traditions of the Church. However Sola Scriptura is a theology that is fundamental to protestantism because it is a theology that denies the tradition of the Catholic Faith. The catholic faith developed beyond the early understanding of tradition and theology, and Sola Scriptura totally denies this development.

 

[josie_L]

Sorry if I break the flow of the thread a bit here, but what in the name of the saint of linguistics (there must be one) is “Solo Scriptura”? I’m no latin expert, but isn’t “Sola” just the feminine form of “Solo”, and therefore the same thing?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Well I guess that would depend on how much stock you put in Protestant theologians.

Seriously though, I think that a lot of Catholics consider the pre-conversion Scott Hahn to have been the Cream of the Crop of Protestants – or at least of Protestant theologians. At least, I used to hold that view; now I’m starting to think that assessment might be just a little unfair to Protestant theologians.

 

[Newbie2]

Looks like nobody wants to play the challenge with bible verses. Perhaps if it were reworded, the challenge is to prove that the bible is the sole authority on matters of Christian faith, using only verses from scripture and not personal opinion?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

My Dear Guyonthestreet,

Sorry Charlie… there is no SOLO Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the latin designation given to the proposition of Father Martin Luther that Sacred Scripture ALONE is sufficient without recourse to either the Magisterial teaching of the Church or the Deposit of the Faith contained in Sacred Tradition.

My Dear Vindicated

Sorry Jack … Solo Scriptura is a phrase that is enjoying much currency whether you and others think it’s gramatically correct or not>

geocities.com/metaphysics8/SoloScripturaMathison.html

Ive even heard Martigioni (sp) use it in one of his catholic apologetic lectures.

 

[happilycatholic]

I wondered when someone would catch this and it just went on and on.

I’ll see that LOL and raise you one…



Sorry, but that’s funny I don’t care who you are.