Sola scriptura challenge

[happilycatholic]

Of course the “official teaching” of the Church is without error. Catholic saints wrote the NT, catholics canonized the NT and to quote another poster: “*There’s nothing in the NT that is not catholic.” -guanophore *

 

[Radical]

Of course the “official teaching” of the Church is without error. Catholic saints wrote the NT, ….

no, apostles and those guided by them (and all guided by the Holy Spirit) wrote the NT….at issue is whether the CC has diverged from their teaching such that one must return to the purity of the NT so as to avoid later erroneous additions and interpretations. Since I find (what I believe to be) such errors, I would hardly agree that Catholic saints wrote the NT any more than I would agree that Baptist saints wrote the NT.

Catholics canonized the NT….

To repeat what I have written on other threads: One must realize that legitimate reasons exist for not equating the universal church in the first centuries and what is now known as the Catholic Church. To borrow from biological science, one can start with a particular species and through genetic mutations have that species undergo such significant changes and developments that the end result is no longer compatible (from a breeding perspective) with the source species. The same could be claimed wrt the CC. It has undergone a number of developments where it has seen doctrine produced and expanded. The question then becomes whether the current CC is doctrinally compatible with the universal church of the first centuries. Would the likes of Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius, Origen or Augustine embrace or reject the modern CC?

Everything you do as a Christian was first catholic. Protestants could not claim to be such if they didn’t first disagree with catholicism.

it is MHO that to disagree with modern Catholicism is a far different thing than to disagree with the first Century Church…and again, it is exactly b/c of the existence of those erroneous additions and interpretations (which are to be protested against)

Now some of the beliefs you hold as a Christian are culminated in reformed catholicism. You have but to choose what to believe and go that route. Luther took what he wanted and left what he didn’t. These are all things that go against what Christ teaches us.

Only if one assumes that the CC (or the Orthodox Church for that matter) hasn’t erred…if it has, then we should reject that error as opposed to embracing it.

We are to be one, with one agenda and one end. One. We are to protect the Church.

Yes, and protecting it would include rejecting error taught by the CC

Support the Church and be loyal to the Church because…it is Christ’s Ministry, not a building or a denomination or some other such earthly *thing. *You don’t just quit and start making your own rules and then invent a doctrine like Sola Scriptura to cause people to adhere to it.

as I have explained on this thread already, it is not really an invention. Error was obvious in the CC of 1517…(even Catholics should acknowledge this, as a considerable amount of reforming was done in the counter-reformation.) The matter then became one of determining the extent of the error. Catholics think their reforms addressed the error and those of the SS view think that the error can only be really eliminated by returning to the purity of the original message found in the NT.

It is subsequent believers who have made the decision to leave the Church and separate from it’s teaching. And that’s fine, but you can’t do so then turn right around a claim it’s the Church that’s changed.

Why not?..though I wouldn’t typically do so w/o also pointing out that the CC is not the Church. You claim that the CC = the church and that it hasn’t strayed from the truth. I claim that the CC is not the church and that it has strayed from the truth. My belief is based on an examination of Scripture and of the ECFs (and you likely believe that your belief is based on the same things).

The part I’ve bolded is where you begin contradicting yourself.

I can’t see a contradiction…only a disagreement with your beliefs

Curiously though, by this I imagine you believe at some point the Church Christ left to Peter and guided by The Holy Spirit (as promised) somehow went astray. Can you tell me when that happened, I mean specifically. You make vague references to supposed changes (in the form of additions) in the Church, but you don’t tell us what those changes are.

All the bits about Mary (except for the virgin birth), all the bits about Petrine supremacy and apostolic succession, all the bits about indulgences and the sale thereof and the treasury of merits,….the introduction of these changes occurred over centuries, but some happened very early on.

We see in 1 Cor that divisions immediately occurred such that some claimed that they followed Paul whilst others claimed that they followed Apollos. What was Paul’s advice? Did he tell the Corinthians that Christ left the Church to Cephas and that we all must be in communion with him (and therefore we shouldn’t be identifying our faith with Apollos or with Paul)? Did he tell the Corinthians that the apostles constituted an infallible teaching magisterium and that therefore, they should identify themselves with Paul and the apostles and not with Apollos?

 

[Radical]

…continued

? Why is it that all 30,000 + denoms can claim to be right on track with God’s Will and yet set the catholic Church aside, claiming that we’ve got it all wrong?

well, first off the alleged 30k denominations is an inflated number…a bit more accuracy/honesty from Catholics here would be appreciated. Second, everyone believes that their view is best, otherwise they would abandon it and adopt a better view. Third, I don’t claim that the CC has got it all wrong, just that it hasn’t got it all right.

A dim likeness of things? What like the Eucharist only once or twice a year?

I don’t believe that the CC has always been diligent in making the Eucharist available to its members and I believe that offering only one element goes strongly against the examples of scripture.

Or maybe the pastor wearing his $3000 Armani suit?

do you really want to compare the extravagances of the typical Protestant pastor with extravagances of the Popes (past and present) ….I think such extravagances are an embarrassment to Christianity.

Or maybe the irreverence of rock band instruments and slide projectors and yet not a sign of a crucifix or of any of Christ’s Apostles in the Sanctuary?

Here you have focused on form over substance…

that no one gets on their knees to pray anymore?

show me a Protestant church that makes such a prohibition

Those kinds of dim likeness?

nope

Yeah, I noticed it too. That’s why I’m catholic. I’m not putting down Protestants here, but when things like this are said, I have to respond. I’m sorry,…

well, as long as you don’t blow a gasket if I respond in kind

Why do we have to put down other religions to hold up our own? There are many beautiful things about the Church. I can find beautiful things about Protestant religions too, my parents are Protestant. But I do have some very specific reasons why I’m not Protestant. I hate to have to post them here. But there they are.

I am not “putting down” Catholicism apart from explaining my very specific reasons why I’m not Catholic.

Everyone enjoys free will my friend. Enjoy yours. No one is challenging you to join the Church.

huh? The CC claims that there is no salvation outside of it….even though that claim has been watered down substantially, it still exists as a challenge for all to join the CC.

 

[happilycatholic]

]no, apostles and those guided by them (and all guided by the Holy Spirit) wrote the NT….at issue is whether the CC has diverged from their teaching such that one must return to the purity of the NT so as to avoid later erroneous additions and interpretations. Since I find (what I believe to be) such errors, I would hardly agree that Catholic saints wrote the NT any more than I would agree that Baptist saints wrote the NT.

Thank you for your opinion, but one can’t debate opinion.

To repeat what I have written on other threads: One must realize that legitimate reasons exist for not equating the universal church in the first centuries and what is now known as the Catholic Church. To borrow from biological science, one can start with a particular species and through genetic mutations have that species undergo such significant changes and developments that the end result is no longer compatible (from a breeding perspective) with the source species. The same could be claimed wrt the CC. It has undergone a number of developments where it has seen doctrine produced and expanded. The question then becomes whether the current CC is doctrinally compatible with the universal church of the first centuries. Would the likes of Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius, Origen or Augustine embrace or reject the modern CC?

Science aside (laughable), Christ said He would be with His Church. If you believe that the Church was once the Church of Christ, you are obligated to continute to believe so or to call Christ less than correct and/or honest.

It’s kind of like saying what was once the Trinity in the Scriptures is not the Trinity of today because it doesn’t take on the same meaning as it once did. The catholic Church has not changed one single position on dogma or doctrine. It has changed the way it deals with such matters, but in belief it has never wavered.

What Christ’s Church once was, we are today.

it is MHO that to disagree with modern Catholicism is a far different thing than to disagree with the first Century Church…and again, it is exactly b/c of the existence of those erroneous additions and interpretations (which are to be protested against)

Once again, your opinion. You don’t get to decide whether the Church of today is the same as the Church of the first century. You only get to be right or wrong.

Only if one assumes that the CC (or the Orthodox Church for that matter) hasn’t erred…if it has, then we should reject that error as opposed to embracing it.

One should reject error, much like Luther did. But one must not reject the Church, much like Luther did.

Yes, and protecting it would include rejecting error taught by the CC

So to protect your children you kick them out of your home? No, everyone stays together and corrects the problem as a family. No separation needed in protection.

as I have explained on this thread already, it is not really an invention. Error was obvious in the CC of 1517…(even Catholics should acknowledge this, as a considerable amount of reforming was done in the counter-reformation.) The matter then became one of determining the extent of the error. Catholics think their reforms addressed the error and those of the SS view think that the error can only be really eliminated by returning to the purity of the original message found in the NT.
Why not?..though I wouldn’t typically do so w/o also pointing out that the CC is not the Church. You claim that the CC = the church and that it hasn’t strayed from the truth. I claim that the CC is not the church and that it has strayed from the truth. My belief is based on an examination of Scripture and of the ECFs (and you likely believe that your belief is based on the same things).

None of this matters. Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist in Scripture. It is entirely man-created doctrine. If I’m going to believe doctrine according to men, it will be the Tradition of the Church, not Reformers.

I can’t see a contradiction…only a disagreement with your beliefs

Maybe you should read it again.

All the bits about Mary (except for the virgin birth), all the bits about Petrine supremacy and apostolic succession, all the bits about indulgences and the sale thereof and the treasury of merits,….the introduction of these changes occurred over centuries, but some happened very early on.

Again, you’d rather put your faith in Sola Scriptura than Church Tradition. I can’t help that.

We see in 1 Cor that divisions immediately occurred such that some claimed that they followed Paul whilst others claimed that they followed Apollos. What was Paul’s advice? Did he tell the Corinthians that Christ left the Church to Cephas and that we all must be in communion with him (and therefore we shouldn’t be identifying our faith with Apollos or with Paul)? Did he tell the Corinthians that the apostles constituted an infallible teaching magisterium and that therefore, they should identify themselves with Paul and the apostles and not with Apollos?

I’ll get to this one later.

 

[Radical]

Thank you for your opinion, but one can’t debate opinion.

agreed, one can only debate the opinion’s validity based on the evidence from which it is made…and, of course, the CC’s belief that it doesn’t have any errors in its official teachings is also just an opinion.

Science aside (laughable), Christ said He would be with His Church. If you believe that the Church was once the Church of Christ, you are obligated to continute to believe so or to call Christ less than correct and/or honest.

…next to the 30k denomination mantra, and the CC is 2000 years old mantra this is probably the most common unsubstantiated claim that one sees here…First one must buy into your opinion of what Christ meant with his promise and then one must buy into your opinion as to what is the Church…Then and only then do we need to consider Christ’s honesty (which, of course, neither of us questions) Since I don’t accept those two opinions of yours, it is kinda moot.

It’s kind of like saying what was once the Trinity in the Scriptures is not the Trinity of today because it doesn’t take on the same meaning as it once did. The catholic Church has not changed one single position on dogma or doctrine. It has changed the way it deals with such matters, but in belief it has never wavered.

No, it is more like saying that the Mormon “Jesus” is not the same person as the “Jesus” of the 1st century church. Sure they have given him the same name and sure they claim he did the same things in Palestine about 2000 years ago, but they have added a bunch of claims…such as that he stopped off in N.America to minister for a time, that he has a spirit brother named Lucifer, that he is of the same “species” as you and I etc. The LDS claim these are inspired revelations, but there is a 1800 year gap between their appearance and Jesus’s earthly ministry. It ain’t 1800 years, but there is a considerable gap between the appearance of the Marian doctrines (for example) and Christ’s earthly ministry…That sort of gap calls into question any opinion that holds that the “Church has not changed one single position on dogma or doctrine.”

You don’t get to decide whether the Church of today is the same as the Church of the first century. You only get to be right or wrong.

Likewise, the Catholic Church of today doesn’t get to decide whether it is the same as the Church of the first century. It only gets to be right or wrong…but one should a least make the effort to look at the evidence and not merely accept what might very well be a circular and self-serving claim.

So to protect your children you kick them out of your home? No, everyone stays together and corrects the problem as a family. No separation needed in protection.

In theory that would be correct…but if the abusive family member refuses to take correction then seperation is required

Again, you’d rather put your faith in Sola Scriptura than Church Tradition. I can’t help that.

that should be that I’d rather place my faith in the clear teachings of Scripture than in the Catholic Church’s Tradition

 

[happilycatholic]

that should be that I’d rather place my faith in the clear teachings of Scripture than in the Catholic Church’s Tradition

We clearly have a difference of opinion. I have the Church behind mine.

I can yield to all but this…

Sola Scriptura is no more taught in Scripture than the explicit mention of the Assumption of Mary.

So on one hand you argue against Tradition and on another you adhere to a tradition created by Reformers.

Can you show me the clear teaching of Scripture in which it says that God’s will for us should be revealed to us by Scripture alone?

 

[Radical]

We clearly have a difference of opinion. I have the Church behind mine.

I can yield to all but this…

Sola Scriptura is no more taught in Scripture than the explicit mention of the Assumption of Mary.

So on one hand you argue against Tradition and on another you adhere to a tradition created by Reformers.

Can you show me the clear teaching of Scripture in which it says that God’s will for us should be revealed to us by Scripture alone?

No. As far as I know Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient and that it is reliable, but they take issue with the claim of formal sufficiency.

As indciated before, if all I did was accept SS w/o question then I would be adhering to a tradition. On the other hand, if I evaluate scripture’s reliability and its material and formal sufficiency (and then evaluate tradition’s reliability)…then I am making an assessment and in the process may either reject or accept SS. Likewise you could check the ECFs and make a historical evaluation as to whether the bodily assumption of Mary is an original teaching/historical fact or if it is a later addition…or you could simply accept it b/c the CC tells you to do so. In the second case you would be adopting tradition.

Therefore, I argue against the tradition of the bodily assumption of Mary b/c from an historical evaluation I don’t believe that it was an original teaching/historical fact. I argue in favour of a certain type of SS b/c my assessment tells me that tradition contains error and that scripture possesses reliability, material sufficiency and formal sufficiency.

…and yes, we sure do have a difference of opinion. May God bless you (nonetheless )

 

[Peter_J]

Hi. Excuse me for responding to old posts (been pretty busy the last couple days) …

To repeat what I have written on other threads: One must realize that legitimate reasons exist for not equating the universal church in the first centuries and what is now known as the Catholic Church.

How closely have you looked at those legitimate reasons? The fact that a theory is tenable doesn’t mean it’s correct.

well, let us also be clear that the CC claims that its official teaching is w/o error, and that therefore, the councils, the magisterium and the Pope must all be infallible when they are teaching “officially”. The problem is that we don’t have an infallible list of those infallible proclamations…

A problem for Protestants, yes, but I don’t believe that not having an “infallible list of infallible proclamations” is a problem for Catholics – or for Eastern Orthodox for that matter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Let me just address your first two statements… and tell you that they call out for clarification or outright revision…

So, let’s start…

no, apostles and those guided by them (and all guided by the Holy Spirit) wrote the NT….at issue is whether the CC has diverged from their teaching such that one must return to the purity of the NT so as to avoid later erroneous additions and interpretations. Since I find (what I believe to be) such errors, I would hardly agree that Catholic saints wrote the NT any more than I would agree that Baptist saints wrote the NT.

Time out … all of the writers of the NT were officially declared as saints. You are making a division without a distinction. Are you saying they are not saints? Of course not. So, why the argument? The last book of the NT was written around 100AD - there were no ‘Baptist saints’ at this time.

The Holy Spirit inspired each writer so that God’s message was ever present. As you well know, there was no Bible as we think of it today prior to 400AD when the Catholic Church (yes, that is the name!) established the Canon. Some of the writings examined were pious, some were deceitful frauds and others were inspired. It was the CC under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that determined which were which. Note: there is no difference in the books of the NT in the Catholic and King James versions. It is simply folly to think can be right about one and in error about the other. if there is error - then the entire document is subject to error - and that means none of it can be from God - because God is Perfect.

The idea that the CC has “…diverged from the teaching…” when the CC teaches and the NT confirms (yet, Protestantism is all over the place on these same beliefs). Here are just three examples:

Baptism - it is a requirement in the NT as the Great Commission, required by the CC, yet optional for many Protestant sects

Lord’s Supper - a requirement in the NT to eat the Flesh of Christ, required by the CC, yet seen as a memorial at best in some of the Protestant sects and quite optional in others.

Confession - a requirement in the NT where Christ gave the power to His Apostles, required by the CC, yet totally ignored in all Protestant churches I know of in the US.

To repeat what I have written on other threads: One must realize that legitimate reasons exist for not equating the universal church in the first centuries and what is now known as the Catholic Church. To borrow from biological science, one can start with a particular species and through genetic mutations have that species undergo such significant changes and developments that the end result is no longer compatible (from a breeding perspective) with the source species. The same could be claimed wrt the CC. It has undergone a number of developments where it has seen doctrine produced and expanded. The question then becomes whether the current CC is doctrinally compatible with the universal church of the first centuries. Would the likes of Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius, Origen or Augustine embrace or reject the modern CC?

it is MHO that to disagree with modern Catholicism is a far different thing than to disagree with the first Century Church…and again, it is exactly b/c of the existence of those erroneous additions and interpretations (which are to be protested against)

///////////////////

Candidly, the only ‘legitimate reason’ I can think of is to legitimize the break from the Church founded by the Son of Go on Peter in about 33AD to a splinter group founded by a man in about 1520AD. Are you aware of Christ returning to earth and saying in effect, “I revoke the promise to prevent the Gates of Hell from prevailing. I revoke the promise I made to teach you additional truths. I revoke the promise I made that the Holy Spirit will all be with you. And, by the way, I’m appointing Martin Luther to take over.” I know of no such event … do you?

One honestly needs to keep a clear eye on history. Catholics trace their origin from Jesus Christ founding His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter and there is an unbroken line from Peter to Benedict XVI. The CC always believed one has to be Baptized, that the ordained priests have the delegated power of God to forgive sin and that, in accordance with Christ’s commands, common bread and wine is consecrated by ordained priests to become, through the Power of God, the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. These same truths were passed on from the Apostles to the Early Chruch Fathers and from them to their successors … and, you guessed it … right to us today where we Catholics still believe these Truths. Where do you stand?

God bless

 

[kcmekim]

**Here’s a challenge for all adherents of the doctrine of sola scriptura. **

Since you use only the Bible in forming your doctrine and no traditions of men, please answer the following question with Bible verses only. No arguments. No polemics. No explaining what this or that verse “actually means” or what conclusion we ought to derive from it. Let your answer be only in the form of relevant Bible verses. And then the rest of us can see for ourselves whether the Bible alone supports the “Bible alone” position.

Question: What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Remember: Bible verses only please.

So basically, what you’re saying is that you want us to answer honestly, as long as our answer falls within the parameters you’ve set in order to make sola scriptura look false?

Why not just let us answer the question and judge our arguments and the scripture we base them on, on their own merits, rather than trying to cattle chute us into giving an anticipated answer?

 

[Radical]

Hi. Excuse me for responding to old posts (been pretty busy the last couple days) …

welcome back

How closely have you looked at those legitimate reasons?

well, I have read, cover to cover, two or three Jack Chick booklets…(actually, I’ve never seen one…perhaps they don’t circulate this far north) Anyhow, moving on to a serious consideration of your question…For brevity’s sake, please let me deal with just one matter namely, the Papacy. The modern CC sees the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, the head of the visible church etc. In contrast, I would suggest that modern historians tend to believe that Peter was never the bishop of Rome, that the Church did not start out with a monarchical system, the Peter didn’t appoint either Linus or Clement as bishop at Rome, that papal infallibility or Petrine supremacy were even contemplated in the early years. I also understand that this understanding is gaining strength accross the board (secular, protestant and catholic scholars).

Catholics can still say that the seeds for their Papal doctrines were planted by the apostles/Christ and that what we see now is just the (inspired and divinely protected) growth of those seeds and that everything is still OK even with these obvious differences between how the CC is now and how the earliest Church was…but that, of course, is based on the assumption that the “promise of the keys” etc.means that the CC can not go down the path of error (Interestingly, the ECFs were rather consistent in seeing that passage as relating to forgiveness and not infallibility of doctrine). I believe that the difference is not due to mere development, but is the result of actual novelty…that what we see is merely growth, just seems to be too much of a stretch and when one sees how spiritual and temporal power was amassed for the bishop of Rome through forgeries, political wheeling etc. the “development of seeds” seems entirely of this world and not of heaven.

The fact that a theory is tenable doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Understood.

A problem for Protestants, yes, but I don’t believe that not having an “infallible list of infallible proclamations” is a problem for Catholics – or for Eastern Orthodox for that matter.

I agree that it isn’t a problem (on balance) and that, in fact, on balance it is a very convenient thing for Catholics. With no such list, an extremely dramatic change in attitude wrt something such as “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” can occur w/o needing to breach an infallible teaching…the early statement can be qualified, reinterpreted or dismissed as fallible opinion (even though the maker would have thought the statement had absolute authority.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

They just dont agree that the church in question is the church of Rome.

When taken with bilblical context

Matthews 16:18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

I can think of 5 possibilities. One is that the church needed reform or needed to be left, meaning the “gates of Hades” had overpowered it. Unbiblical.

The second is that it’s really the Catholic church that split off. Not historically accurate.

The third is that the catholic church is false and some protestant denomination had somehow been in hiding for over 1000 years. No historical evidence for, and lots of it against.

The 4th is that that bible verse somehow doesn’t matter.

The 5th is that the Catholic church is the right one.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Oh…somewhere in the middle of this thread I talked about adhering to Sola Scriptura as a practice and not a doctrine. And I tried rather clumsily to explain what I meant.

Well, in the last couple of days, I think I can do a better job.

You are holding Sola Scriptura as a practice but not a doctrine if…

(1) You

• Are an practicing, orhodox Christian. The Apostles and Nicene creeds can define your faith.
• Do believe the Bible for what it claims to be. the inspired Word of God.
• therefore are not one of these gay-marriage loving, baby-killing loving liberal Protestants.

(2) You

• don’t believe the book of Mormon is the Word of God.
• don’t believe the pope is infallible under all the circumstances that Catholics say He is
• might buy into some parts of tradition but are not convinced tradition as an entity is infallible (how can you since somebody has to define what is valid / invalid tradition and that somebody is not infallible either).
• aren’t following the local “prophet of God” who is getting dreams and visions and leading the flock.
• aren’t buying into any other alternative claims of authority that you may have encountered that have cropped up over the last 100 years or so.

(3) But at the same time you

• Refuse to argue on CAF that Sola Scriptura is Biblically true, basically because you are not sure that it can be done.
• can even see some holes in the arguments of those who want to claim that Sola Scriptura is Biblically true.

If that is you, then you hold to Sola Scriptura as a practice, but not a doctrine.

Anyway, that was probably the one thing niggling me from this thread.

 

[happilycatholic]

quote=Radical;5641190]No. As far as I know Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient and that it is reliable, but they take issue with the claim of formal sufficiency.

I’ve never heard the term “formal sufficiency” but what the catholic Church does teach is that Scripture is sufficient for what it is, Scripture. There are also other forms of Revelation of God’s Word and Will. These make up the Deposit of Faith. Sacred Tradition is one of them. If we did not have Tradition, then the Holy Spirit would be bound by Scripture. The Holy Spirit isn’t bound by anything, let along His own Inspiration to mankind.

So you truly believe that the entirety of the Revelation of God can be copywrited and mass distributed and is bound between the pages of a man-made book? That’s charming, but not likely at all. The Revelation of God to all mankind will never be subject to this world and our flawed interpretations. The Revelation of God is known intimately by His Church and is passed on to its believers and those in communion with Her through Baptism.

Yes, whew! Now that sounds like something God would do.

As indciated before, if all I did was accept SS w/o question then I would be adhering to a tradition. On the other hand, if I evaluate scripture’s reliability and its material and formal sufficiency (and then evaluate tradition’s reliability)…then I am making an assessment and in the process may either reject or accept SS. Likewise you could check the ECFs and make a historical evaluation as to whether the bodily assumption of Mary is an original teaching/historical fact or if it is a later addition…or you could simply accept it b/c the CC tells you to do so. In the second case you would be adopting tradition.

This is flawed because you use SS to prove SS. Your argument is circular. On the Assumption, you, like all other non-catholics tend to believe that it isn’t fact until it’s written down. Hence Sola Scriptura.

Scripture tells a story. Was there no story *before *it was recorded? Would there be no story if it weren’t recorded? This should be your proof. History outside of Scripture tells us who was doing what and when. The ECFs were already honoring Mary. The fact that it was not documented until a point in time doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before that time. You and all Protestants use this as flawed proof of fact.

If that were the case, then the Gospels didn’t actually happen til around the year 100. The Didache was written at about the same time and has many Traditions in it and clarifies what it was to be Christian and catholic at that time. At one time the Didache was considered to be placed in canon Scripture.

Therefore, I argue against the tradition of the bodily assumption of Mary b/c from an historical evaluation I don’t believe that it was an original teaching/historical fact. I argue in favour of a certain type of SS b/c my assessment tells me that tradition contains error and that scripture possesses reliability, material sufficiency and formal sufficiency.

There are no “types” of Sola Scriptura. That is like saying there are types of Sola Fide. You either believe in the Scripture Alone or you don’t. You can’t just have it *your *way and invent *Radical’s Form of Sola Scriptura *and claim to adhere to that.

…and yes, we sure do have a difference of opinion. May God bless you (nonetheless )

why the afterthought?

God Bless and Keep you,

HC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KCMekim

Welcome to the list… While this was not my question, would you feel more confident using other then SS as a source? While that is fine with me… I am curious as to what you believe SS actually means.

So basically, what you’re saying is that you want us to answer honestly, as long as our answer falls within the parameters you’ve set in order to make sola scriptura look false?

Why not just let us answer the question and judge our arguments and the scripture we base them on, on their own merits, rather than trying to cattle chute us into giving an anticipated answer?

It would seem that using bible verses to support SS would make sense … but, if not, I wold appreciate you telling me why,

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

So basically, what you’re saying is that you want us to answer honestly, as long as our answer falls within the parameters you’ve set in order to make sola scriptura look false?

Why not just let us answer the question and judge our arguments and the scripture we base them on, on their own merits, rather than trying to cattle chute us into giving an anticipated answer?

Well to be fair I don’t think either side, Catholic or Protestant, has been able adhere to the instructions that caoimhin laid out in the OP, in particular the prohibition against ‘explaining what this or that verse “actually means” or what conclusion we ought to derive from it’. So I’d have to question your assertion (or innuendo) that the deck has been stacked against Protestants in this thread.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree that it isn’t a problem (on balance)

I’m a little surprized to hear you say that, but I guess it’s just another illustration of the differences that exist among Protestants. For the sake of comparison, the great Protestant (at the time) theologian and scholar Scott Hahn thought it was a serious problem to have only a “fallible collection of infallible documents” (at least judging by what he later wrote in his book “Rome Sweet Home” – see the bottom of page 75 and top of page 76. Note the part about “the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position”.)

 

[kcmekim]

Hi, KCMekim

Welcome to the list… While this was not my question, would you feel more confident using other then SS as a source? While that is fine with me… I am curious as to what you believe SS actually means.

The name “sola scriptura” is actually a little misleading so it’s hard to blame Catholics for not understanding what we believe about sola scriptura.

The name “sola scriptura” literally means “scripture alone”, but obviously it isn’t alone because we also have various creeds, confessions, catechisms, the wisdom and authority of the church, etc. Likewise, the Bible says that God has given us preachers, teachers, etc.

In spite of what the name implies, what we really mean when we talk about sola scriptura isn’t scripture as the only source of doctrinal authority, but scripture as the supreme authority which all other authorities must defer to.

That’s why I much prefer to say the authority of scripture, rather than sola scriptura.

It would seem that using bible verses to support SS would make sense … but, if not, I wold appreciate you telling me why,

What else are we to use?

 

[Radical]

…**Matthews 16:18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. **

I can think of 5 possibilities. One is that the church needed reform or needed to be left, meaning the “gates of Hades” had overpowered it. Unbiblical.

The second is that it’s really the Catholic church that split off. Not historically accurate.

The third is that the catholic church is false and some protestant denomination had somehow been in hiding for over 1000 years. No historical evidence for, and lots of it against.

The 4th is that that bible verse somehow doesn’t matter.

The 5th is that the Catholic church is the right one.

Here are some more possibilities to add to your list.

First, what is Christ’s church? Some possibilities:

a) The Catholic Church;
b) The Orthodox Church
c) The Orthodox and Catholic Churches combined
d) All the visible Churches in existence at 1517
e) The body consisting of all believers in Christ.

Second, what was meant by “gates of Hades”? In this regard, I note that gates cover openings in defensive structures such as walls and that the gates are then typically fortified to as to defend against invasion through those openings. Gates are therefore part of the defensive system of a place and therefore, it would seem that the verse relates to Hades not being able to withstand an “attack” by Christ’s Church. Some possibilities as to how the Church attacks Hades:

a) spreading the Gospel
b) preserving Christ’s message
c) adding souls to its body

Third, what was meant by “overpowered”? Some possibilities:

a) any set back in the Church’s mission
b) absolute and permanent defeat in all aspects of the Church’s mission
c) something between the two options above

(I believe that more possibilities exist for all three considerations)

In order to get Matt 16:18 to apply so that it means that the Catholic Church could never officially teach any false doctrine it seems that you are limiting yourself to options (a) wrt “the Church”, (b) wrt “gates of Hades and (a) wrt “overpowered”….(and all with the added restriction that if those in charge fall into error , then they take the whole Church with them).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KCMekim,

Glad you asked… And, thanks for your explanation on SS.

The name “sola scriptura” is actually a little misleading so it’s hard to blame Catholics for not understanding what we believe about sola scriptura.
That’s why I much prefer to say the authority of scripture, rather than sola scriptura.
What else are we to use?

In John 16:12-14 Jesus says to His Apostles

12
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
13
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

Even after the Resurrection the Apostles were slow to believe and fearful. Christ rises up into heaven 40 days after His Resurrection - and at least some of the Apostles are slow to believe and fearful. Ah, but then comes Pentecost when the Holy Spirit transforms these slow to believe and fearful followers of Christ who happened to be hiding from the Jews at the tine - into courageous and fearless proclaimers of the Word. Now, you just have to wonder, “How did that happen?”

Well, we have to go back just a bit. Recall in Matt 16: 18 that God the Father gave Peter a special inspiration to declare that Jesus was the Son of God. Peter had not figured this out on his own - rather through Divine Revelation Peter was able to answer Christ’s question correctly. Christ builds His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter. It is this Church that provides us with inerrant teaching (this would be the same Church tht has provided you with the inerrant Word of God - the Bible).

Do you find it strange that John (who ran away the night Christ was arrested) but who stood by the Dying Christ on the Cross with Mary, the Mother of God, did not come up to Peter and say something like, “You are not fit to be our leader. You DENIED the Son of God before men! I’m taking over the leadership of this group because you have sinned and failed the test while I did not!” That didn’t happen - even though Peter did sin by denying Christ - and Christ forgave the repentant Peter… Christ did not fire Peter from his job!

Every Pope since Peter has had the same basic problem: they were all sinful men with real (not imagined) weaknesses as they lead God’s Chruch. You want to see something amazing - well, tracing the line from Christ to Peter to Benedict XVI is really not hard to do… here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes But, the really amazing thing is that this Church today is totally recognizable in its teachings. For example:

Baptism - the CC has always taught that this is necessary to be declared a Child of God. The form (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) of how the water is used is not important as long as water is used and the Trinitarian wording is pronounced.

Confession - the CC has always taught that Christ delegated the Power to forgive (or, not forgive) sin to the Apostles who passed this on to their successors.

Holy Eucharist - the CC has always taught it is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of common bread and wine.

If you are looking for something to use to get the Full Story - then pay attention to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail - the CC can not teach error. It is as simple - and as complex - as that.

God bless