Sola scriptura challenge

[kcmekim]

If you are looking for something to use to get the Full Story - then pay attention to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No, that’s OK, thanks. I’ve got the word of God, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the fullness of truth.

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.

Jehovah’s Witnesses say the same thing. So do Mormons. So did Jim Jones and the People’s Temple. So did David Koresh. And the list goes on…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KCMekim

Maybe your Bible is different from mine…

Do you know where that Word of God that you are holding comes from?

That promise by Christ (Matt 16) was just made to Peter and the Church Christ had just built on him … not on any of these other groups.

No, that’s OK, thanks. I’ve got the word of God, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the fullness of truth.

Jehovah’s Witnesses say the same thing. So do Mormons. So did Jim Jones and the People’s Temple. So did David Koresh. And the list goes on…

You may want to go back to that last post and just look at what has been going on. I realize it is not what you want to hear - but, just look at the history. Things just did not spring into action in 1520 or 1920 either for that matter.

God bless

 

[kcmekim]

Hi, KCMekim

Maybe your Bible is different from mine…

Do you know where that Word of God that you are holding comes from?

Yes, I do. The history of the Bible is a big part of the church history class I teach.

You may want to go back to that last post and just look at what has been going on. I realize it is not what you want to hear - but, just look at the history.

Doesn’t negate the fact that Catholicism is hardly the only religion that has convinced itself that it cannot fall into error.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Last time I saw multiple choice questions like this, I was in school!

Let me address the last you posted - or, I will get hopelessly lost on the choices you developed…

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).

Now, I am not really sure what “wrt” means … so, help me out on that one.

Take a look at the one about the “…ones in charge fall into error…” guess what - there have been some really sinful Popes. Men who pleadged to follow Christ and feed his lambs and sheep - causing major scandal. No doubt about it. But, you know what - none of them EVER taught error (the Gates of Hell - meaning the forces of hell and all the Devils in it) could not win.

In practical terms, what does this mean? Let me tell you"

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT that the consecrated Bread and Wine is really the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is almost 2,000 years teaching the same content. Look at the 1520 and beyond crew - they are all over the place - except for saying what the Catholic Church says. Why? They lack Apostolic Succession on actually having a priesthood with valid ordination that can perform the Consecration.

This is only one of many items. Work on this and see what you come up with (for starters, go to John 6 and read where Christ really says you have to eat His Flesh and yes, He is serious!)

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KCMekim,

That is really not an answer … but … if that is what you teach, then tell me, can you name the group responsible for putting the Canon together?

Yes, I do. The history of the Bible is a big part of the church history class I teach.
Doesn’t negate the fact that Catholicism is hardly the only religion that has convinced itself that it cannot fall into error.

You do realize that sinful men fall into error every day - but, this is quite different from teaching error. The promise made by Christ to His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) about the Gates of Hell not prevailing has a particular meaning. To teach error would surely be considered to have been swept up into the hands of Evil. And, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ has lied to His followers! Again, make the distinction in that no error can be taught from no sin can be committed. Christ never promised that Peter or his successors would be sinless. While some of hte popes have been very sinful and lead scandelous lives…none have taught error - and only God can make something like that happen!

God bless

So, since you teach Bible History, what does Matthew 16 mean to you.

 

[kcmekim]

Hi, KCMekim,

That is really not an answer … but … if that is what you teach, then tell me, can you name the group responsible for putting the Canon together?

You want me to say the Catholic church, but I’m not going to take the bait.

You do realize that sinful men fall into error every day - but, this is quite different from teaching error. The promise made by Christ to His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) about the Gates of Hell not prevailing has a particular meaning.

That’s right. And it has nothing to do with infallibility.

To teach error would surely be considered to have been swept up into the hands of Evil. And, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ has lied to His followers! Again, make the distinction in that no error can be taught from no sin can be committed. Christ never promised that Peter or his successors would be sinless. While some of hte popes have been very sinful and lead scandelous lives…none have taught error - and only God can make something like that happen!

I understand that you believe that. I, however, strongly disagree.

So, since you teach Bible History, what does Matthew 16 mean to you.

The whole passage or just the portion that Catholics cite?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KCMekim

Bait? It is a simply straight forward question … requries just a wee-bit of objectivity without the attitude. Now, I am wondering just how objective you are in your teaching of history.

You want me to say the Catholic church, but I’m not going to take the bait.

That’s right. And it has nothing to do with infallibility. Now, I am not sure if you understood the question, or you are just do not see a difference. The idea behind the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility (this is the same group that brought you the error free Bible… but you are probably working on the incomplete and abridged version…) is that it can not teach error. It has taught that since about 400AD the Canon is closed - nothing else is to be included in the Bible (and, I think yo believe that too - and you believe that to be an error free statement, eh? ) From sinful men you can only expect sinful thoughts, words and deeds, eh? We are really talking about something beyond the human experience - the guidance of the Holy Spirit in keeping the Catholic Church from teaching error.

I understand that you believe that. I, however, strongly disagree. And, since this is a forum for discussion, just why do you, “… strongly disagree”?

The whole passage or just the portion that Catholics cite?

Whatever you are comfortable with is fine with me.

God bless

 

[kcmekim]

Hi, KCMekim

Bait? It is a simply straight forward question … requries just a wee-bit of objectivity without the attitude. Now, I am wondering just how objective you are in your teaching of history.

When I teach history, I’m objective. When I’m talking to Catholics and know the argument they’re going to use, I’m ready for it.

Certainly more objective than Catholic teaching about the Reformation or Protestantism.

 

[LutheranDK]

**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.

Please. I dodged traps like this on these forums long ago. I’m not going to walk into it now.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KCMekim,

All I know is what you have posted - or failed to post - here. And, this speaks volumes

When I teach history, I’m objective. When I’m talking to Catholics and know the argument they’re going to use, I’m ready for it.

Certainly more objective than Catholic teaching about the Reformation or Protestantism.

Since you haven’t answered yet, the assumption is you will evade and then - as you see - come up with another unsupported statement and try to pass it off as fact. Do recall you are voluntarily on the Catholic Answer Forum … there is the assumption that you are here for answers - which in a discussion format means you also answer questions.

Try to do better with the next poster who asks you about the origin of the Bible.

God bless

 

[kcmekim]

Hi, KCMekim,

All I know is what you have posted - or failed to post - here. And, this speaks volumes

And your rude and condescending tone speaks volumes about you.

Since you haven’t answered yet, the assumption is you will evade and then - as you see - come up with another unsupported statement and try to pass it off as fact.

And it’s this tone that is precisely why I’m really not interested in getting into this with you.

Do recall you are voluntarily on the Catholic Answer Forum … there is the assumption that you are here for answers

Why? Have I asked any questions?

Try to do better with the next poster who asks you about the origin of the Bible.

If they try to bait me, then I’ll give them the same answer. Sorry, but this isn’t the first time I’ve had this conversation with Catholics. I’m sorry I ruined your trap, but I’m afraid you may just have to try some good old fashioned sincerity.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LutheranDK

This is still not my question - but, I would be interesed in some type of answer. Tell me, just what does this ‘trap’ look like?

Please. I dodged traps like this on these forums long ago. I’m not going to walk into it now.

Is the ‘trap’ that SS can not be proven by the scripture? Honestly, I think everyone knows that.

Is the ‘trap’ that the CC is the group that established and then closed the Canon of Sacred Scripture? Honestly, I think almost everyone knows that.

So, I am really quite lost - as I understand it, at least since you joined this thread, what is the answer to SS? As I recall, it was Luther’s slogan in oppistion to the CC. is there something else. But, really, if you feel you are being ‘trapped’, why respond? Of course, if you feel you are being ‘trapped’ what a wonderful opportunity to prove your posiiton.

Your call.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Banjo

Thanks for the link on the Council of Basel - it was truly a ‘soap opera’ for its day!

Radical,
Omitted from my last post to you…regarding your reference to Luther in your post 111…for some background on the politics of the Council of Basel you might check out the following article…

newadvent.org/cathen/02334b.htm

Thanks for a civil discussion…I don’t consider myself an apologist, I have other things I’m trying to do and other reasons for keeping in touch, although irregularly on these forums
God bless…

God bless

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

While I have thrown my hat into the ring in this thread only a few times I have come to a very good conclusion. There is not proof that can be shown for Sola Scriptura in scripture. Whether by a literal or subjective interpretation. Remove emotion from the discussion and employ logic. This is a wonderful opportunity for academic discussion but it seems that emotions are running high.

To the Protestants on this thread. Can you prove from the Holy Scripture that Sola Scriptura is correct? This is a tradition that was formed by men. The Traditions of the Catholic Church are carried over from the Old Testament and were instituted by Christ Himself for the most part. Also, remember that Christ said to follow the direction of the Pharisees for they “sit on the chair of Moses”. This is a clear direction to follow the hierarchical establishment for teaching the law. So, when the Apostles went forth, they took on the roll of supreme earthly teachers after the ascension of Christ, they were to be obeyed as if they were speaking from the Chair of Moses, and therefore, speaking with his authority. Thus by obeying the apostle, you obey Christ.

 

[kcmekim]

While I have thrown my hat into the ring in this thread only a few times I have come to a very good conclusion. There is not proof that can be shown for Sola Scriptura in scripture. Whether by a literal or subjective interpretation. Remove emotion from the discussion and employ logic. This is a wonderful opportunity for academic discussion but it seems that emotions are running high.

To the Protestants on this thread. Can you prove from the Holy Scripture that Sola Scriptura is correct?

How ironic that you would claim that sola scriptura is false, but then insist that we employ sola scriptura. That tells me that on at least some small level, you do accept scripture as being authoritative.

The Traditions of the Catholic Church are carried over from the Old Testament and were instituted by Christ Himself for the most part.

Do you have examples (with scripture to back them up)?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Anthony Joseph,

Thank you for a thoughtful and excellent post.

While I have thrown my hat into the ring in this thread only a few times I have come to a very good conclusion. There is not proof that can be shown for Sola Scriptura in scripture. Whether by a literal or subjective interpretation. Remove emotion from the discussion and employ logic. This is a wonderful opportunity for academic discussion but it seems that emotions are running high.

To the Protestants on this thread. Can you prove from the Holy Scripture that Sola Scriptura is correct? This is a tradition that was formed by men. The Traditions of the Catholic Church are carried over from the Old Testament and were instituted by Christ Himself for the most part. Also, remember that Christ said to follow the direction of the Pharisees for they “sit on the chair of Moses”. This is a clear direction to follow the hierarchical establishment for teaching the law. So, when the Apostles went forth, they took on the roll of supreme earthly teachers after the ascension of Christ, they were to be obeyed as if they were speaking from the Chair of Moses, and therefore, speaking with his authority. Thus by obeying the apostle, you obey Christ.

As I preceive the question: prove the position of SS it seems straightforward to me. Just as straightforward as prove that Christ is God. While we can say that His birth and mission were foretold in the OT, that His life was challenged by Herod shortly after He was born and the Holy Innocents were part of the Plan of God, that the Father and Holy Spirit announced the beginning of Christ’s mission at His baptism, the numerous miracles Christ performed and His Claim to being the Son of God, His rising from the dead and ascension into heaven. Unfortunately, I can not even begin to tell you where SS is backed up in any manner by scripture.

And, there’s the rub. If one throws out the Church of Christ (and that would be the Catholic Church) with its Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition (not the traditions of men) the only item remaining is the Bible which was established through the Grace of God acting through the Catholic Church and completed before the year 400AD. But, it is this same Bible that proclaims the words of Christ appointing Peter as the head of Christ’s Church, giving the Apostles the Great Commission, delegating the Power of God to forgive sin and to consecrate common bread and wine in the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ to these Apostles, etc.

To my way of thinking, the Bible that they hold onto so tightly - yet fail to understand its words - points directly to the Church founded by Christ on Peter. SS can not be proved by any aspect of scripture. It is all that remains from the groups who have turned their back on the Christ’s Church.

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

Do recall you are voluntarily on the Catholic Answer Forum … there is the assumption that you are here for answers

It isn’t about whether you’ve asked questions or not. Just the fact that you’re on the Catholic Answers Forums allows us make certain reasonable inferences about what your intentions are (or at least should be). (See also Protestants, why are you here? and similar threads.)

And your rude and condescending tone speaks volumes about you.

A few comments … There are a wide variety of Catholics here, and it’s not really uncommon for Protestant posters to complain about one or more of us. But the really interesting thing is that usually the very poster that is complained about by a Protestant poster, is gravitated toward by other Protestant posters (I hope that’s not bad grammar). So it’s kind of like the two things cancel out, you know?

Yes, I do. The history of the Bible is a big part of the church history class I teach.

Cool. Always nice to converse with Protestants who know their stuff.

Doesn’t negate the fact that Catholicism is hardly the only religion that has convinced itself that it cannot fall into error.

Forgive me for going off-topic, but that statement makes me ask, Do you consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be two different religions?

 

[Peter_J]

Please. I dodged traps like this on these forums long ago. I’m not going to walk into it now.

Well it’s like I said to kcmekim …

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.

 

[Radical]

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”.)

It would seem that S Hahn has jumped from a frying pan into a fire…I wonder if he knows it. Here is the way that I see it:
For both Protestants and Catholics it is:
a) I have faith that God revealed his message to us.
b) I have faith that scripture is a reliable record of that message.
c) I have faith that God used fallible men to first write down that message and then to preserve and recognize it .

The Catholic adds:
d) I have faith that all sacred tradition is also a reliable part of that message.
e) I have faith that God used fallible men to first orally voice that message and then to preserve and recognize it.

Hahn seems to think that it is logically inconsistent to believe God used fallible men as stated in (c) but not as stated in (e). In reality, for most Protestants and Catholics there is no logic involved. They simply take as a matter of faith what their parents or what the guy at the front of the church tells them…it is not thought through. Wrt those people, one can’t say one view is logically superior to the other as both are merely positions of faith.

For those who have examined the matter, Hahn’s accusation of logical inconsistency would apply if the Protestant accepted (b) and (c) based on evidence X and criteria Y and then rejected (d) and (e) when the exact same evidence X and criteria Y exist for (d) and (e). But such is hardly the case. The ECFs identifed a certain set of writings as scripture to the exclusion all else. The ECFs did not identify a certain set of teachings as sacred tradition to the exclusion of all else (what they did identify as the core rule of faith can be entirely found in scripture). Next, we have manuscript after manuscript for scripture so that we can study the degree of error in the copying procedure and note where variations occur and then do are best to determine what was originally written. We do not have the same evidence to use to determine the degree of error in the transmission of sacred tradition. We have quotes from most books of the NT in the first extra-scriptural writings (known as the Apostolic Fathers{AFs}) so that we know these works existed before the time of the AFs and again from the manuscripts we know the tendency to make additions or alterations to the text. In contrast, the AFs do not make reference to anything about Mary (for example) apart from what is contained in Scripture (her virginity, that is) and so we don’t know that those traditions (of Marian doctrine) existed at the time of the AFs and we can’t study the tendency for additions using the same approach. Wrt scripture, we do not have to accept much of anything that the ECFs did after the first few centuries whereas wrt all sacred tradition we still have an obligation to accept developments at this time. Those distinctions are just for starters…and so I would suggest that one can recognize (c) and reject ( e) w/o needing to be logically inconsistent.
Further, as indicated (a)-(e) are all matters of faith and so when talking to someone outside the conservative Christian family we must admit that we possess these items of faith. The situation changes somewhat when we are having an in-house discussion. The Catholic admits (a)-(c) and so the Protestant can work off of that admission…Therefore, between you and me, it shouldn’t be a matter of me proving (a)-(c), but you proving (d) and (e). If you want to say that I must accept (d) and (e) b/c I have accepted (a)-(c), then it sounds to me that you would be in the same position as a trial lawyer telling the judge that b/c he accepted the one statement from the witness, he must then accept everything the witness said.

 

[Revert_TSIEG]

I have read through almost all the pages on this thread. My question is why has no one brought up the point that prior to Luther’s reformation, there was not “Christian” church, only the Catholic Church. The church in question did not exist. So does that mean that the Catholic Church was wrong for over 1500, and all those who followed it went to hell or were simply wrong?

I am a true believer of apostolic succession… therefore I am believer in out Pope. I am not going to lie and say that I feel all warm and fuzzy about all the CC practices and believes, but I must follow them, no matter how I feel. The Holy Spirit has soften my heart about abortion. I will continue to pray for my understanding of why we, the CC do certain things… all while loving what I have already became aware of!

Just my 2c

Revert TSIEG