Sola Scriptura (continued)

[mayra_hart]

i just can help it but david currie is great when it come to sola scriptura an i quoted “The church is the arbiter of what is true and what is not. It uses the bible and reverences it,but it must not place the bible ineo a position the bible itself specifically rules out–that of being the only source of authority in a christian’s life. T he issue is not whether our view of the bible is “high” or “low " but whether our vuew of the bible is BIBLICAL.Unless you can show me how i am mistaken, i can only point out the obvious:the Protestant view of Scripture is UNSCRIPTURAL.” YOUR FRIEND DAVID CURRIE… thank you for this. ST. JUDE PRAYERS May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen.”

 

[hvg3akaek]

Please show where one book in the Bible states that another book is inspired.

Can you not read? Can you not look back to my posts and see me state it many many times? :crying:

Should I add it to my signature so I can stop this continual flow of the same questions over and over again? Or will people fail to look there too?

2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Where in the Bible does it state that this is the only record of “the word of the Lord”?

Where does it say that there are more?

Perhaps I missed some posts? Perhaps you are quoting Peter, testifying that Paul’s writings are inspired? Why are there some of Paul’s writings that are not in the canon?

Yes, yes it looks like you did

Why are they not? My guess would be because they were lost?

But, where in the Bible is the list of books that belong in the bible?

I guess that would be the contents page?

Ahh. You just made my case for me. If I want to know if it is raining, I will use the best available evidence. I will study the skies, I will watch the weather channel. I will pull up the sattelite photos. In the same way, Apostolic succession preserves the absolute best testimony to the teachings of Jesus, just like the doppler radar is the best source of testimony about the weather. However, apostolic tradition is one better,because Jesus promised them that He would preserve them in all truth. therefore, when they give testimony about what belongs in the canon, he who hears them hears Jesus.

That is also a cyclic argument. It is only the “best” if it is indeed true. The whole idea of "sola scripture’ is that it isn’t true - and thus, we use the next “best” - human reasoning led by the Holy Spirit.

Sure, textual criticism and study of history also is a witness, but the most reliable witness is God Himself, and and God speaks through the magesterium of the Church.

That is Begging the Question. Please don’t

I am not sure what you are trying to say with this formula. Perhaps this is your way of saying that you have rejected the authority that Jesus appointed to be witness to His gospel?

The formula merely states that just because something is not in the Bible, it is not necessarily “Tradition”

Yes, a number of people and councils took up this debate. Why does it take so long fore people to understand the will of God? Why has it taken the Jews so long to recognize their messiah? Why did it take the messiah so long to come in the first place? Why is it taking so long for Him to come back?

Because we are all sinful, and there is no one to make infallible decisions for us?

 

[HailMary]

I never said the Word of God was not Jesus. I am saying that the term can mean a multitude of different things, and one is the Bible. You need to show that it is not the Bible, or that it is only Jesus.

The bible didn’t exist when St. John wrote his Gospel. So the “Word of God” St. John was referring to throughout his book was not the bible

SO Jesus is your helmet and your sword? Could not also the Bible be your sword?

Why would you choose Jesus over something else?

The word of God spread - that is, the News about Jesus. What is the News about Jesus, but the Gospel? The Bible?

What is the Gospel? They obviously didn’t “spread the bible” since it

1. didn’t exist
2. most people could not read Aramaiac, Greek, or Latin (because they are illiterate)
3. didn’t have leisure time, etc
4. even if bible existed, they were expensive because the printing press was not invented

The Gospel is the “good news”;deriving from the Old English “god-spell”: and that news is Jesus Christ Himself! For the greater part of Christianity, the “good news” spread through the Ministry of the Church.
Matthew 20:20-21

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing (do you believe in Baptism…clearly its in the bible) them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

I don’t think Christianity “makes disciples” of anyone by giving them the bible and letting them do their own thing. For example,
Acts 8:32

He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

Philip was a bishop! Something the majority of protestants have removed from their church because they don’t believe in hierarchy either.

This verse, and the following high light the arrogance of Sola Scriptura
2 Pet 3:16

speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

Most protestants will admit the reality of this prophetic passage but exclude themselves from the people in error since they are “led by the Spirit” like everyone else.

How would you ‘hear’ the Bible? Seriously you jest? Have you never been to a service where it has been read out? Have you never heard something in the Bible that you have thought “Gee, I better do that!”?

Brother, if I went to your denomination (yes, you go to a specific denomination, we can’t forget that), I would be hearing what we all agree are the text of the bible, but the message would be radically different, since every protestant has their Sola Scripture to interpret it anyway they see fit.

for example:
John 20:22-23

And when he(Jesus) had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

An honest interpretation of this passage would indicate Sacramental Confession to an appointed servant of the Lord (a priest) since how would the Apostles (and their succesors) know what to “forgive” or “retain” if was not known to them through a confession?

But if I go to your parish, the pastor and 99.99% of all people in that building would disagree with the Catholic, Orthodox and many other Protestant interpretations. What I have noticed is even thou Protestants must declare Sola Scriptura to be true, they generally don’t practice is since they submit to their own pastors and their beliefs.

We know that despite we are both Christians (followers of Christ) we disagree on a lot (and agree on a lot too). If you are truly interested of understanding why Sola Scriptura can’t possibly lead to true Christian living, you have to put down your walls for a second, humble yourself, and get your hands dirty ( by research) and admit the possibility that you are mistaken.

I strongly urge this website as a starting point. If, indeed your are convinced of Sola Scriptura, then reading this article should not affect you and it would give you a better understanding of the Catholic position so you can have more meaningful dialogue.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

God Bless you.

 

[hvg3akaek]

History does help, but there IS a lot of disagreement and various historical perspectives. How do you decide which one to choose? The one that suits your conclusion?

No, not at all (For isn’t that what I am claiming is the problem with Tradition?)

The one to ‘choose’ is the one that agrees with what the Bible teaches (not with the way the bible could possibly sort of be interpreted)

The rejection of this teaching represents a rejection of Jesus, without whom salvation is impossible.

So…is that a yes? You believe that I will go to hell if I don’t agree that Mary was always a virgin?

Since people were obviously getting saved before any of it was written, I can confidently say that NONE of the bible is necessary for salvation.

Great I like that statement! So, how does it apply to the above? If we do not need the Bible, clearly we do not need Tradition…what about Mary? What about Mass? Confirmation? Baptism? Confession?

Whose claims are the most reliable.? Would it not be those of Jesus, and the ones who spent every day with Him for three years, and those whom he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail?

Gates of hell not prevailing =/= infallibility.

Are you saying that the Apostles were fallible?

Absolutely!

Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Matthew 26:75
Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Galatians 2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Sounds like fallible, sinful, normal humans to me.

If you believe God could do that then, why not now?

I believe it could still happen today. However, I also think that the time of scripture writing is over - God has revealed to us what He will, and the next revelation will be Jesus’ return.

Better yet, why could it still not happen today?

Again I say - it could. But why should it?

Of course that was one of the disagreements! Just like it still is today! Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

Who disputed that Paul wrote Paul’s letter?

The book of Hebrews is a different issue altogether, as I was merely talking about if Paul wrote it or not.

Jesus instructed them, when they had disagreements, to take them TO THE CHURCH. the failure to follow this commandment has resulted in a fracturing of His body.

Such as in Acts 15:36-41?

What verse do you speak from here?

 

[El_camino]

hvg3akaek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
Please show where one book in the Bible states that another book is inspired.
Can you not read? Can you not look back to my posts and see me state it many many times?

Should I add it to my signature so I can stop this continual flow of the same questions over and over again? Or will people fail to look there too?

2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

hvg3akaek, I think 2 Peter 3:16, if anything OPPOSES Sola Scriptura, why? becuase it clearly says: “THE IGNORANT will distort Scripture to their own destruction”

What is this mean? that for you to STOP being IGNORANT and interpret Scripture correctly, and not distort it to your own destruction, you need EXTRA-biblical INSTRUCTION. This is, that one cannot simply take the bible alone and arrive at all the appropriate doctrines, because if you DO THAT you would be interpreting the bible as an ignorant, and you will unavoidingly “distort it to your own destruction”

And what is this EXTRA BIBLICAL instruction that you need to STOP BEING ignorant and not distort scripture to your own destruction? We call it SACRED TRADITION.

Funny thing, everyone, even SOLA SCRIPTURA adherents interpret the BIBLE in the light of their own instruction or tradition. What you have to find, however, is the TRUE INSTRUCTION to follow.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[hvg3akaek]

(1) It continues to be profoundly aggravating for me (and I suspect for other protestant Christians) that CC has arrogated ownership of the scriptures - which it then donates to others - and that it has appropriated unique, divinely-inspired authority to interpret them to the exclusion of any other authority. If doing so is based by CC on the scriptures, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

yes, it is quite upsetting when RC’s claim ownership of something God gave the whole world. I cannot help but think it is a left-over attitude from the more illiterate days, when RC could keep the Bible from the people by keeping it in Latin. Now, they just seem to claim that “our” copies are inferior - without showing any reason fir such claims.

(2) Divine inspiration is difficult to pin down - as we have seen in the reduction of indulgences heavily used in the middle ages, and the increase in annulments currently. We also see it in papal elections which require in most cases a number of ‘votes’ before there is an elected Pope. If selection were divinely inspired, why is a vote required, why might it take more than one vote, and why is it perhaps true to say (although we can never know) that a *minority *papabile can be elected by the College of Cardinals? Why does it take so long? Where is there divine inspiration here? And where does the infallibility suddenly originate from? This is the closest example that I think can be understood by everyone.

They are some great questions, and I look forward to some answers for them!

(3) Some of these ‘divinely inspired’ doctrines/dogmas/beliefs/etc have become some of the worst stumbling blocks to re-unification. And good men on both sides of the schism were presumably divinely inspired to antithetical beliefs.

Indeed. I also feel that when talk of “re-unification” occurs, Roman Catholicism seems to still see it as a “you come over here, or it won’t happen”. There is no chance for give-and-take, no chance for reasonable debate - for it comes down to their idea that their Traditions are above the Bible - yes, above, for the Traditions can shape and change what the Bible “actually” means, and can “correct” passages that apparently were not well written when God breathed them.

I am attracted by the post that suggested that

that is not ‘inspiration’ at work, nor is it ‘infallibility’ at work. That is people, lead by the Holy Spirit, using the brains that God gave them, deducing what fitted, what was accurate, and what was legitimate. That is not Tradition. That is thinking.

Perhaps it was the CC combination of scripture with ‘tradition’ that has made it so difficult to overcome the reluctance of protestants to trust the self-proclaimed authority of the CC.

Thanks for the
It is quite a difficult task to accept the teaching of an organisation that claims infallible teaching, but which clearly does not base said teaching on the Bible. At least with my church, I know where I stand - they do not claim infallibility, and I do not expect it! And through everything, I search the Bible, so that I may know what is correct and true, and hold on to that!

(4) and (5) are both interesting and thought-provoking, but I felt I had nothing to add, so I wont quote them

I suspect some interpretations are simply made up. Reading the Interpretation of the Bible of the Church in the light of propositions made on the Forum suggests this to be true.

Indeed. The lack of an answer to the question I posted here leads me to the same conclusion.

Thanks for your thoughts, nerfherder!

-hvg3

 

[guanophore]

(1) It continues to be profoundly aggravating for me (and I suspect for other protestant Christians) that CC has arrogated ownership of the scriptures -

Do you mean that there should be more an attitude that the scriptures “belong” to the world, or at least, to all of Chrisetndom?

which it then donates to others -

I beg to differ on this point. I think that the Church would have much preferred to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the reformers!

and that it has appropriated unique, divinely-inspired authority to interpret them to the exclusion of any other authority.

This is a mischaracterization of the authority. Authority is given by Jesus, who founded the Church. The authority to interpret belongs to the HS, who inspired them. The Church, as the recipient of the authority does not “appropriate” this. It is a direction and a command of God. Just as Jesus did not account equality with God something to be grasped at, but humbled Himself, becoming a man. Although, I will concede the point that is difficult at times to recognize humility on this forum!

If doing so is based by CC on the scriptures, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly! Testimony must come from outside.

(2) Divine inspiration is difficult to pin down - as we have seen in the reduction of indulgences heavily used in the middle ages, and the increase in annulments currently.

One must distinguish between practices, guidelines, abuses, and doctrinal teaching. There have been a number of situations in which the infallible teaching was misunderstood, misapplied, ignored, or abused. This does not invalidate the teaching.

We also see it in papal elections which require in most cases a number of ‘votes’ before there is an elected Pope. If selection were divinely inspired, why is a vote required, why might it take more than one vote, and why is it perhaps true to say (although we can never know) that a *minority *papabile can be elected by the College of Cardinals? Why does it take so long? Where is there divine inspiration here? And where does the infallibility suddenly originate from? This is the closest example that I think can be understood by everyone.

I think it is very difficult to reach consensus. I will not pretend to know what happens in the papal conclave, but when I am running a committee meeting and want consensus, I can affirmt that it is the type of decision making that takes the longest. Also, one must consider that though the HS is not fallible, each person is, and for each to hear and respond to the HS correctly sometimes takes a long time.

(3) Some of these ‘divinely inspired’ doctrines/dogmas/beliefs/etc have become some of the worst stumbling blocks to re-unification. And good men on both sides of the schism were presumably divinely inspired to antithetical beliefs.

Such as?

Perhaps it was the CC combination of scripture with ‘tradition’ that has made it so difficult to overcome the reluctance of protestants to trust the self-proclaimed authority of the CC.

This authority was given to the Apostles by Jesus. None of the apostles “self proclaimed”. They each ordained bishops to take their place.

(I have posited elsewhere that the succession might have moved with Luther and subsequent reformers.

By that do you mean that the apostolic succession left the CC and moved to the reformers?

 

[guanophore]

Without the emphasis on divine inspiration as to the work of the institution of the Catholic Church, it should have been possible, before or after the fact of the schism, to avoid permanent separation.

How?

(4) Someone asked ‘How do you decide which interpretation (of scripture and/or tradition) to choose? The one that suits your conclusion?’ This is a tough one, for it seems that each time a decision is made, CC comes out on top, by its own admission. Is this simply coincidence? Is it God’s will? How do we know?

The scriptures have been interpreted since the first generation of their writing. The understandings of their meaning must go back to the first days. If a new interpretation is offered that is contrary to what has been handed down, it is rejected.

We start with ownership of Christ’s Church on earth, understanding of his mission and God’s, interpretation of scriptures and ownership of the Bible, apostolic succession, and the core beliefs of faith. Can I truly believe that God comes down on the side of CC every time? No.

well…why not?

Further, we know, we are aware through the events of history, that there are times that interpretations made by the Magisterium or the Papcy actually reflect, or react to, annoyances, rebellions, heresies, conflicts of other kinds, outside or inside the CC. A 20th century example is seen in the two papal Encyclicals, Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII, 1893: to protect Catholic interpretation of the Bible from attacks by rationalistic science); and Divino afflante Spiritu (Pope Pius XII, 1943: to defend Catholic interpretation from attacks that opposed the use of science by exegetes and that wanted to impose a non-scientific, so-called ‘spiritual’ interpretation of scripture). And we now have The Interpretation of the Bible of the Church Vatican, 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger ed. Things change, slowly, but they do change and at least sometimes, in reaction to events elsewhere.

It is not a change of doctrine, though, just application of the teaching to the current situations. The doctrine goes back to the apostles, and cannot be changed.

(5) If 'The Word is a Person, not a book. And that Person is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, God Incarnate Himself ', then it means that CC has also appropriated, arrogated to itself, the very Being of God, incarnate in Christ, by claiming sole ownership of the scriptures (not forgetting they are also used by Moslems and Jews). This is certainly not a correct understanding of intention by anyone’s interpretation.

Jesus teaches us that salvation comes from the Jews. For this reason, he was born a Jew, and all of his apostles were Jews. he is the fulfillment if the prophesies given to the Jewish nation. However, he chose not to continue the practices of the law given to MOses. Instead, he founded a Church. To that Church, he gave the New Testament, and directed that Church to preserve and protect the holy writings of the Jewish nation from which He sprang. These things are not “appropriated” or “arrogated” by anyone, but assigned and appointed by Jesus. The Church was obedient to His command, and took ownership of the responsibilities that He gave.

I suspect some interpretations are simply made up. Reading the Interpretation of the Bible of the Church in the light of propositions made on the Forum suggests this to be true.

I must confess that it seems to me that a lot of stuff gets “made up”. However, the HS has preserved and protected the gospel brought to us by the Son, just as Jesus promised.

 

[porthos11]

Not convinced??Of what??

Mr Gandalf claimed that none of the books in the Bible claim that others are inspired. Clearly, that is untrue, as my example states. If that does not convince you that a book i the bible claims that some books in the bible are inspired, then I cannot see you being convinced of anything, ever…

But I didn’t claim that, did I? But even if “a” book (A) claims that another book (B) is inspired, it still does not prove the inspiration of book (A), so why should I accept its claim of inspiration for book (B).

I take it no more for granted than I do the fact we exist

My point about existing/raining/etc is that we can find things out and know them through other methods other than inspiration. We do not need God to grant infallibility to someone to know it is raining. Nor do we need God to grant infallibility to someone to know the Bible is inspired.

Yes, and we are primarily convinced of facts through reason and the senses. I do not need infallibility to see that it’s raining because my eyes tell me it’s raining, and so does everybody else. There is no conflict whatsoever when one sees that it is raining or that you exist. Infallibility is not needed here because there is no possibility for error.

But for the inspiration of the Bible, there is indeed room for error. You say it is, I say it’s not, and neither of us have proven our case to our mutual satisfaction. Clearly, one of us is in error: could be you, or could be me. The question is, who is? If you say that the Bible is inspired, then I have to accept that on YOUR authority, but then that defeats Sola Scriptura since there is a tradition introduced: you.

Partially, it is claimed by the book itself, one person writing about another person’s inspired-ness. Partly it is its historical accuracy. Partly it is its agreement with other scripture. Partly it is the lack of disagreement of the accounts, in a time when people could have stood up and said “Hey! That never happened!” when the original witnesses were still there. Partly because we see a history of God inspiring people to write his Word down throughout the Old Testament.

You see? now you’re laying down the criteria for “inspired”-ness. That means you’re asking us to accept your authority. We don’t need to know you’re infallible for this, but essentially, you are asking us to accept the Bible on the criteria you laid down. That makes YOU the final authority, defeating Sola Scriptura.

Again, even if a person A is writing about another person’s B inspired-ness, that doesn’t prove that person A is inspired, or even right.

Nevertheless, none of these prove that Peter was inspired to call Paul inspired. It doesn’t even prove that Matthew was inspired (no other book in the Bible claims so). In fact, only the Book of Revelation calls itself inspired, and that can’t be proven without resorting to circular logic.

 

[guanophore]

Oh, very

And his actions recorded in Galatians 2:11-21 are likewise very pope-ish.

By this do you mean to say that it is “pope-ish” to make mistakes?

Galatians 2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

After all, if he were actually a pope back then, I am sure he would have already claimed what he did was right, and the Church would have accepted it as infallible doctrine, then Paul would have been a heretic, right?

I can’t tell if you are just being sarcastic, or if you really think this is what the church teaches? Do you really confuse infallibility with inerrancy? Do you think that right doctrine is erased by the failure of a person to follow the teaching? Was Jesus teaching of the gospel made null and void because Judas rejected it?

But fortunately, Peter knew his place, and the place of God’s word.

If by “God’s word” you are referring to the decision of the Council fo Jerusalem, then I think you are right.

Acts 5:29
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

The council of Jerusalem where the decision was made that the Gentiles were not bound by the Jewish dietary laws was the council where the HS guided the apostles to the infallible decision. Peters personal shortcoming of hypocrisy did not undo the decision made by the council, or make null and void his own participation in it.

 

[guanophore]

Can you not read? Can you not look back to my posts and see me state it many many times? :crying:

2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I did go back through the thread. I am sorry that I am frustrating you. It seems to me that there is NO WAY to determine which of Paul’s letters was being referred to by Peter without the testimony of the Church.

Where does it say that there are more?

What about the letters of Paul that did not survive? Are we to assume that they were not inspired? Paul himself speaks about letters he wrote back and forth to the Corinthian Church. We can see from his references that these letters are not those that we currently have.

I guess that would be the contents page?.quote]

Exactly! The contents page created by the Catholic Church!
hvg3akaek;2218418:

Because we are all sinful, and there is no one to make infallible decisions for us?

The HS is not sinful. Christ is not too weak to keep his promises to preserve us in all truth. He is able to prevent the gates of hell, regardless of our sinfulness. That is why Peter is such an exellent example of God’s grace.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Why would you choose Jesus over something else?

Because I can’t read Jesus? Because I cannot purchase Jesus and give Him to a friend?

What is the Gospel? They obviously didn’t “spread the bible” since it

1. didn’t exist
2. most people could not read Aramaiac, Greek, or Latin (because they are illiterate)
3. didn’t have leisure time, etc
4. even if bible existed, they were expensive because the printing press was not invented

The Gospel is the “good news”;deriving from the Old English “god-spell”

Correct, it is the Good News of Jesus. Not Jesus Himself, as He was in heaven, not being spread over the world.

I don’t think Christianity “makes disciples” of anyone by giving them the bible and letting them do their own thing. For example,
Acts 8:32

But - oops! He did not have the NT. We do. Different situation.

This verse, and the following high light the arrogance of Sola Scriptura
2 Pet 3:16

Most protestants will admit the reality of this prophetic passage but exclude themselves from the people in error since they are “led by the Spirit” like everyone else.

Most Roman Catholics will exclude themselves from the people in error since they are “led by some person who claims that he is infallible”, unlike everyone else.

Brother, if I went to your denomination (yes, you go to a specific denomination, we can’t forget that), I would be hearing what we all agree are the text of the bible, but the message would be radically different, since every protestant has their Sola Scripture to interpret it anyway they see fit.

How many have you been to? How many have you checked out, to see if this difference is really there? Or are you just guessing? Or taking someone else’s fallible word for it?

for example:
John 20:22-23

An honest interpretation of this passage would indicate Sacramental Confession to an appointed servant of the Lord (a priest) since how would the Apostles (and their succesors) know what to “forgive” or “retain” if was not known to them through a confession?

Can you give me an example of this being done by one of the apostles?

But if I go to your parish, the pastor and 99.99% of all people in that building would disagree with the Catholic, Orthodox and many other Protestant interpretations. What I have noticed is even thou Protestants must declare Sola Scriptura to be true, they generally don’t practice is since they submit to their own pastors and their beliefs.

That would be their failing, not the failing of Sola Scripture. The better preachers will say “But don’t take my word for it - check it up i the scriptures and make sure I am right”. That is a sign of a good preacher.

We know that despite we are both Christians (followers of Christ) we disagree on a lot (and agree on a lot too). If you are truly interested of understanding why Sola Scriptura can’t possibly lead to true Christian living, you have to put down your walls for a second, humble yourself, and get your hands dirty ( by research) and admit the possibility that you are mistaken.

The problem is, once again, that you do not offer anything approaching evidence. I mean, how much weight would the exact same logic mean to you? If I were to say:

“If you are truly interested of understanding why Sola Scriptura definitely does lead to true Christian living, you have to put down your walls for a second, humble yourself, and get your hands dirty ( by research) and admit the possibility that you are mistaken.”

would you suddenly agree with me? Why should I with you?

I strongly urge this website as a starting point. If, indeed your are convinced of Sola Scriptura, then reading this article should not affect you and it would give you a better understanding of the Catholic position so you can have more meaningful dialogue.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

Thankyou for that. I may get around to reading in its entirety sometime (it is quite long), but from a brief read of the first few sections, I am seeing a lot of straw-men arguments

Likewise, here are three articles for you to look at

Sola, Not Solo - On Bonocore’s “Question for a Sola Scriptura Believer”
Sola Scriptura Extremis - How an Important Doctrine is Misunderstood and Abused
Why Protestants Still Protest

 

[guanophore]

The one to ‘choose’ is the one that agrees with what the Bible teaches (not with the way the bible could possibly sort of be interpreted)

So…is that a yes? You believe that I will go to hell if I don’t agree that Mary was always a virgin?

I certainly am not in a position to comment on that! I think that if you reject the teaching of Jesus about his own identity, and that

The apostles are the best authority on what the bible teaches, since it is their message that is reflected in it’s pages, and it is they who testify to it’s content.

of His mother, that is a risky business, since only He is the Way, the 'Truth, and the Life.

If we do not need the Bible, clearly we do not need Tradition…what about Mary? What about Mass? Confirmation? Baptism? Confession?

Jesus is not bound my any of these means to save. He can save whoever HE wants, however He wants. However, he founded a Church, and He gave the Holy Teachings to the Apostles that He chose, commissioned them, and instituted sacraments as the normal means by which the good news would be spread and apprehended by people.

Gates of hell not prevailing =/= infallibility.

REally!? What do you think it means?

Galatians 2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Sounds like fallible, sinful, normal humans to me.

I see that you don’t understand what the church means by the teaching of infallibility.

Who disputed that Paul wrote Paul’s letter?

Well, there have been many disputes. My question is, which letter was Peter reading?

Paul’s letters are accepted as inspired BECAUSE of the testimony of the HS, through the magesterium of the church.

the more illiterate days, when RC could keep the Bible from the people by keeping it in Latin. Now, they just seem to claim that “our” copies are inferior - without showing any reason fir such claims.

Actually there is merit to the claims. If you read some newer paraphases, like the Living Bible, you can understand why the CC was so alarmed and defensive about translations. It was because of the confidence in the inspired and infallible nature of the scriptures that the Church did not want them perverted and misunderstood.

for it comes down to their idea that their Traditions are above the Bible - yes, above, for the Traditions can shape and change what the Bible “actually” means, and can “correct” passages that apparently were not well written when God breathed them.

Tradition does shape what the writers of the HOly Scriptures actually meant. However, Tradition is not “above” the Bible, it just precedes it. the two are not to be separated, or contradict one another.

It is quite a difficult task to accept the teaching of an organisation that claims infallible teaching, but which clearly does not base said teaching on the Bible.

This is just a thinking error on your part. Everything was revealed to Jesus’ disciples. they taught it prior to the NT being written. Of course the gospel of Jesus is not based on the NT! the teaching preceeded it!

At least with my church, I know where I stand - they do not claim infallibility, and I do not expect it! And through everything, I search the Bible, so that I may know what is correct and true, and hold on to that!

I hope that you will continue to search, because when you encounter the successors to the apostles, it will be clear!

 

[SPH1]

The one to ‘choose’ is the one that agrees with what the Bible teaches (not with the way the bible could possibly sort of be interpreted)

Okay, forget the Holy Catholic Church for a moment. How do you choose “the one that agrees with what the Bible teaches” from among all of the various Protestant groups? Who is the final determiner…you?

So…is that a yes? You believe that I will go to hell if I don’t agree that Mary was always a virgin?

It’s not that simplistic. Your problem with God is in rejecting his Holy Catholic Church…a very serious problem, indeed.

Great I like that statement! So, how does it apply to the above? If we do not need the Bible, clearly we do not need Tradition…what about Mary? What about Mass? Confirmation? Baptism? Confession?

All were provided by God, so I’d say that we “need” them in that regard.

Gates of hell not prevailing =/= infallibility.

Absolutely!

Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Matthew 26:75
Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Sounds like fallible, sinful, normal humans to me.

No apostle was fallible in their teaching authority.

With regard to Peter specifically, you begin your error with failing to quote Scripture in its fullness:

**Luke 22: 31-32: “**And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Christ specifically was looking to a full conversion experience for Peter. What came before has no applicability whatsoever to what came later.

Galatians 2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

I have an old article dealing with this here:
shasta.com/sphaws/rebuke.html

But take a close look at John 21:15-24:

1. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
2. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
3. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
4. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
5. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
6. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
7. Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
8. Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
9. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
10. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

The last thing Christ did before his Ascension was to give Peter shepherdship over the Church…the whole Church. Furthermore, Christ specifically looked into the future at Peter’s career; Peter’s loyal and faithful service as shepherd of Christ’s Church unto Peter’s death was a done deal…foreordained by Christ Himself. Peter, never for one moment, lost this Christ-given authority and nobody could take it from Peter:

Not St. Paul
Not Luther or Calvin
Not you
Not even Peter himself.

Christ himself had the future rebuke incident with Paul before his divine eyes, and with the full divine confidence made Peter shepherd of the Church.

I’m saying that Christ himself has already passed upon the rebuke incident, determining that it did not detract or touch upon Peter’s position. Just as the Holy Catholic Church teaches.

 

[hvg3akaek]

hvg3akaek, I think 2 Peter 3:16, if anything OPPOSES Sola Scriptura, why? becuase it clearly says: “THE IGNORANT will distort Scripture to their own destruction”

The same is often said about Roman Catholicism - that it distorts the Scripture to their own destruction.

What is this mean? that for you to STOP being IGNORANT and interpret Scripture correctly, and not distort it to your own destruction, you need EXTRA-biblical INSTRUCTION. This is, that one cannot simply take the bible alone and arrive at all the appropriate doctrines, because if you DO THAT you would be interpreting the bible as an ignorant, and you will unavoidingly “distort it to your own destruction”

Agreed!

And what is this EXTRA BIBLICAL instruction that you need to STOP BEING ignorant and not distort scripture to your own destruction? We call it SACRED TRADITION.

Disagree!

It is the Holy Spirit, our guide (John 16:13) and teacher (John 14:26).

We all have the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), which is a Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Ephesians 1:17).

Funny thing, everyone, even SOLA SCRIPTURA adherents interpret the BIBLE in the light of their own instruction or tradition. What you have to find, however, is the TRUE INSTRUCTION to follow.

Which is why it is important to interpret without extra thoughts, traditions, teachings, or doctrines, to make sure that the Bible says what people claim it says.

 

[hvg3akaek]

hvg3akaek, I think 2 Peter 3:16, if anything OPPOSES Sola Scriptura, why? becuase it clearly says: “THE IGNORANT will distort Scripture to their own destruction”

The same is often said about Roman Catholicism - that it distorts the Scripture to their own destruction.

What is this mean? that for you to STOP being IGNORANT and interpret Scripture correctly, and not distort it to your own destruction, you need EXTRA-biblical INSTRUCTION. This is, that one cannot simply take the bible alone and arrive at all the appropriate doctrines, because if you DO THAT you would be interpreting the bible as an ignorant, and you will unavoidingly “distort it to your own destruction”

Agreed!

And what is this EXTRA BIBLICAL instruction that you need to STOP BEING ignorant and not distort scripture to your own destruction? We call it SACRED TRADITION.

Disagree!

It is the Holy Spirit, our guide (John 16:13) and teacher (John 14:26).

We all have the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), which is a Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Ephesians 1:17).

Funny thing, everyone, even SOLA SCRIPTURA adherents interpret the BIBLE in the light of their own instruction or tradition. What you have to find, however, is the TRUE INSTRUCTION to follow.

Which is why it is important to interpret without extra thoughts, traditions, teachings, or doctrines, to make sure that the Bible says what people claim it says.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Yes, and we are primarily convinced of facts through reason and the senses. I do not need infallibility to see that it’s raining because my eyes tell me it’s raining, and so does everybody else. There is no conflict whatsoever when one sees that it is raining or that you exist. Infallibility is not needed here because there is no possibility for error.

Really? No error? Well, you better inform all the philosophers who spent so long trying to reason our existence that it wasn’t a case of “I think, therefore I am”, but “there is no error!”

But for the inspiration of the Bible, there is indeed room for error. You say it is, I say it’s not, and neither of us have proven our case to our mutual satisfaction. Clearly, one of us is in error: could be you, or could be me. The question is, who is? If you say that the Bible is inspired, then I have to accept that on YOUR authority, but then that defeats Sola Scriptura since there is a tradition introduced: you.

When you claim against Sola Scripture, or when you claim for Traditions, your only base is those said Traditions. That is a cyclic argument, and faulty logic.

“Sola Scripture” does not mean we have to give up thinking or reasoning. It means that the Scriptures are above your Traditions, and where they contradict, or where the Traditions are not based upon the Bible, they should be thrown out.

You see? now you’re laying down the criteria for “inspired”-ness. That means you’re asking us to accept your authority. We don’t need to know you’re infallible for this, but essentially, you are asking us to accept the Bible on the criteria you laid down. That makes YOU the final authority, defeating Sola Scriptura.

Not at all - I specifically said “partially” to allow for other things in there. I am not the final authority, and if anyone can show me to be wrong from the Bible I will gladly change my ways!

Again, even if a person A is writing about another person’s B inspired-ness, that doesn’t prove that person A is inspired, or even right.

I never claimed it did

Nevertheless, none of these prove that Peter was inspired to call Paul inspired. It doesn’t even prove that Matthew was inspired (no other book in the Bible claims so). In fact, only the Book of Revelation calls itself inspired, and that can’t be proven without resorting to circular logic.

Fine, for I was not trying to show that Peter was inspired, not Matthew, nor Revelation. These are straw men you are throwing up.

 

[hvg3akaek]

By this do you mean to say that it is “pope-ish” to make mistakes?

Galatians 2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Sorry, i thought the " " would have given away my sarcasm

I think that if Peter was indeed the pope, he should not have been able to make such a big mistake in his teaching. And yes, it was teaching - many followed him, even Barnabus was lead astray. (Galatians 2:13).

If by “God’s word” you are referring to the decision of the Council fo Jerusalem, then I think you are right.

Acts 5:29
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

The council of Jerusalem where the decision was made that the Gentiles were not bound by the Jewish dietary laws was the council where the HS guided the apostles to the infallible decision. Peters personal shortcoming of hypocrisy did not undo the decision made by the council, or make null and void his own participation in it.

Indeed!
God’s word - the bible - is to be taken over men’s word - traditions.

It is interesting to see how the Holy Spirit moves them to make such a decision, quite unlike what happened with the defining of the NT canon, which, if what RC’s claim is true, and it was all done by infallibility and apostolic succession powers, should have been over much quicker.

As should the election of a new pope, too.

 

[NotWorthy]

The early church, the first few hundred years was neither Roman Catholic or (clearly) Protestant or Orthodox in any way that these descriptions label thing today. It was simply God’s Church. Then, some time around ~400 AD Roman Catholicism really started up and grabbed power.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. I just wish you guys would decide on when the Roman Catholic Church made the grab for power. You see, we have to answer to the 3rd century with Pope Victor. We have to answer to the 1st century with Clement. But the predominant opinion seems to be the 2nd century, although I’m not sure why.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I did go back through the thread. I am sorry that I am frustrating you. It seems to me that there is NO WAY to determine which of Paul’s letters was being referred to by Peter without the testimony of the Church.

Peter says “all”. That’s good enough for me. Do you question it?

What about the letters of Paul that did not survive? Are we to assume that they were not inspired? Paul himself speaks about letters he wrote back and forth to the Corinthian Church. We can see from his references that these letters are not those that we currently have.

Ah, ok I thought you were referring to something else. Yeah, those letters were probably inspired too. Guess there’s no real way to know, apart for taking Peter at his word.

Of course, God could have let the ‘non-inspired’ ones be lost/destroyed. He’s powerful and in control like that.

Or, they might have all been inspired, but the missing ones just repeated others, that is, they were all overlap. We loose nothing in not having them.

Exactly! The contents page created by the Catholic Church!

You are claiming some crazy things now.

For starters, the contents page of my ESV was not created by Roman Catholics.

And to follow up, over half of every contents page was “created” before Christianity existed!

The HS is not sinful. Christ is not too weak to keep his promises to preserve us in all truth. He is able to prevent the gates of hell, regardless of our sinfulness. That is why Peter is such an exellent example of God’s grace.

gates of hell not prevailing =/= us not making mistakes