Sola Scriptura (continued)

[Timmy_Z]

I apologize that I disappeared in the middle of the previous thread which is now way too long to catch up on (my life has a lot going on and unfortunately debating online sometimes loses the priority contest).

Anyway my defense of the doctrine basically was as follows:

1.We all (Christians) believe in the inspiration of the Bible
2.“Infallible” Catholic teaching is at times directly contradictory to the Bible
3.The Christian has no where left to go but Sola Scriptura

Obviously this assumes that Sola Scriptura is not ideal. However it is my belief that normal sinful men are incapable of remaining faithful enough to handle infallibly preserving all truth, faith, and doctrine (additionally demonstrated by church history and the history of the papacy) so God in His wisdom provided us with perfect Scriptures for His people apart from any particular corruptible man, church, or denomination. Again this obviously assumes perfect theological unity is impossible (or not terribly important) or as most evangelicals believe: “In the essentials unity, in the nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.”

So (though many of you will certainly poke holes elsewhere) my argument lives or dies on #2…

The RCC teaches salvation is possible for those who do not believe in Jesus (RCC Catechism #847).

The Bible very clearly says:
John 3: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

-Tim

 

[kleary]

1.We all (Christians) believe in the inspiration of the Bible

Hit the nail right on the head.

2.“Infallible” Catholic teaching is at times directly contradictory to the Bible

Wrong. Not one “Infallible” Catholic teaching contradicts, or has ever contradicted “The Bible”. If you are reading Scripture and interpret it wrongly (such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did) then you are presented with a problem now aren’t you.

3.The Christian has no where left to go but Sola Scriptura.

This is exactly what the Protestant Reformers taught and believed. When they left the Church Jesus established, they had no choice but to go to “Scripture Alone” and “invent” a “new doctrine” called “Sola Scriptura”.

Their “Doctrine” states: “All revealed truth is contained in Holy Scripture.” This is a false doctrine as proven and stated by the Council of Trent, convened to answer the Protestant heresies.

One I always throw out at these discussions is that the Canon of New Testament Scripture, the list, the knowledge of what books are “Scripture” is “A truth revealed by God”, and IT AIN’T IN THE BIBLE.

So (though many of you will certainly poke holes elsewhere) my argument lives or dies on #2…

The RCC teaches salvation is possible for those who do not believe in Jesus (RCC Catechism #847).

The Bible very clearly says:
John 3: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

-Tim

The Catechism, in #847… does it mean salvation possible for those adults who cannot possibly for themselves “believe in Jesus” … or for my Traditionalist neck of the woods… “Be Catholics”. I believe it is concerning those ADULTS who have no way of believing, no possibility of apprehending, Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church. God is not going to condemn you to eternal hell if you have never heard “the good news” so to say. Jesus is the means of their “salvation” friend- you read things differently than I do. A “different interpretation” of “Scripture” is the start- a “different interpretation” of Catholic teaching, other than what is meant to be taught is the nail in the coffin.

“Radical Traditionalists”, such as the Feeneites hold to a wrong position of Catholic doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Church”. You hold to another position that is similar, that Fr. Feeny bought into and applied it to Catholics. That is why he was excommunicated.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

 

[kleary]

I apologize that I disappeared in the middle of the previous thread which is now way too long to catch up on (my life has a lot going on and unfortunately debating online sometimes loses the priority contest).

-Tim

Mine does too.

I follow Catholic Teaching, published by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical letter “Humanae Vitae”. My wife and I refuse to use any meathod of artificial contraception. (One meathod like “Birth Control Pills” - nowhere taught about in Scripture - another thing that proves Sola Scriptura false)

I have three children, the oldest turned 3 this past Feb. 28. My time is taken up also.

Ken

 

[eveready]

Hit the nail right on the head.

[SIGN]Wrong. Not one “Infallible” Catholic teaching contradicts, or has ever contradicted “The Bible”. If you are reading Scripture and interpret it wrongly (such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did) then you are presented with a problem now aren’t you.[/SIGN]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14: 6). & 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” They seem to conflict don’t they?

 

[Bishopite]

I apologize that I disappeared in the middle of the previous thread which is now way too long to catch up on (my life has a lot going on and unfortunately debating online sometimes loses the priority contest).

Anyway my defense of the doctrine basically was as follows:

1.We all (Christians) believe in the inspiration of the Bible

 

[eveready]

Hit the nail right on the head.

[SIGN]Wrong. Not one “Infallible” Catholic teaching contradicts, or has ever contradicted “The Bible”. If you are reading Scripture and interpret it wrongly (such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did) then you are presented with a problem now aren’t you.[/SIGN]

· “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
· “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
· “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” (Rom. 4:5).
· “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
· “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8).
If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed," (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

 

[eveready]

unto all good works.

Who gave you the authority to correctly interpret Scripture when you can’t say for sure that it is inspired?

If one starts with a false premise, one ends up with a false conclusion.

I’m sorry but it’s not only not ideal but NOT a teaching prior to the reformation. NO church father, no Christian leader taught such an idea prior to the reformation era.

Again, how do you know what is the truth of Scripture if sola scriptura only parts Protestants in continual divisions?

Man is corruptible but God can give man i.e., the Apostles the ability to write infallibly, and He can also keep His church (Mt 16:15-19) from speaking without err.

This assumes all Protestants have the same “essentials” which the do NOT. They have differing positions on what are the essentials.

But what you are saying is that your position of what scripture means, therefore is has to be the infallible one, yet you don’t accept an infallible interpretation of scripture to begin with. Or you will have to say that your interpretation of scripture isn’t infallible which begs the question as to who’s is? And if it no one has an infallible interpretation of scripture, then who’s “fallible” interpretation is the correct one??

Yes. However, it is saying that those who are closest to the Lord have a greater chance at being saved. In other words, those who hold to the fullness of truth have a greater chance at enduring to the end because of the grace they receive in the sacraments; this would be for faithful Catholics. Others still can be saved but don’t have the graces as do Catholics through the church so it makes it more difficult for them, but not impossible.

Right, however Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to proclaim His truth, Luke 10:16 and the Apostles had successors who were part of the authoritative church (2 Tim 2:2). Jesus established an authoritative church (Mt 16:18 and 18:18) to “bind and loose” sin, to proclaim what we are to “believe” so to say I believe doesn’t clarify what one believes. The word “believe” can mean a whole host of things to many people. It’s what you “believe” that can get you into heaven or keep you out. If your believe Jesus, you will believe those who He sent and their successors who according to history have the authority of Jesus behind them.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

“In the essentials unity, in the nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.”

Timmy Z

Could you please show me in the Bible where the essentials and nonesentials are laid out? My Bible doesn’t have them laid out for me… Does yours?

God bless

 

[dcdurel]

Sola Scriptura can never work because scripture does not claim to be a summary of the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached.
Jesus said those who believed the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached would be saved. (mark 16:16). Now since Jesus spent 3 years teaching the apostles everything and since the bible does not claim summarize even 15 minutes of what the apostles taught, then their is no way Protestants can learn the Gospel by reading the narratives of the life of Jesus, the four Gospels. Nor can they learn the Gospel from reading any of the other scriptures, because none of the scriptures claim to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached and spent 3 years learning from Jesus.

In other words, the bible does NOT claim to present the Gospel that the apostles spent 3 years learning from Jesus. The four written Gospels only claim to be narratives of the life of Jesus. They do NOT claim to present a summary of the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached.

Of course Catholics should know already the content of this Gospel.  It is simply the Catholic faith.

How do we know this?
Because the early Christians who learned from the apostles believed all the Catholic Church teachings. Where did they learn these teachings? From the apostles.
Therefore, the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith.

 

[I_Leatherman]

"eveready:

[SIGN]Hold it! This essential quesiton has to be answered before we continue. How do YOU know the Bible is inspired?[/SIGN]

eveready:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Who told you the NT is inspired Scripture?

 

[VociMike]

So (though many of you will certainly poke holes elsewhere) my argument lives or dies on #2…

The RCC teaches salvation is possible for those who do not believe in Jesus (RCC Catechism #847).

The Bible very clearly says:
John 3: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

And yet even perhaps 90% of Protestants don’t actually believe that. They believe that God’s mercy extends to e.g. all babies and young children who die.

What about you? Do you believe that every infant and young child who dies is condemned? Do you believe that every single person who lived before Christ (including all the prophets and other Jews!!!) is condemned? Is Moses condemned? Is Abraham condemned? They never believed in Jesus because Jesus had not come to earth when they lived. So they must all be condemned.

You take it from there.

 

[porthos11]

 

[Ilroy]

The RCC teaches salvation is possible for those who do not believe in Jesus (RCC Catechism #847).

The Bible very clearly says:
John 3: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

-Tim
Wonderful Quote…now how about finishing what the quote says and means with the rest of the related verses.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.
20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.
21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

 

[Ilroy]

And don’t forget John Chapter 10:

14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.
15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Gee, I wonder who the other sheep might be…maybe those who have had no way of knowing the teaching of Christs One Church through no fault of their own…just as The Church teaches.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Thank you for all of the responses. I have been in and out of doctors and specialists appointments today and now am behind on other things. I will get to a sufficient reply late tonight or tomorrow. (Sorry for the delay)

-Tim

 

[hvg3akaek]

Hello Timmy Z!

I wanted my first post here to be in this topic, as I feel that every problem / issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants comes down to this issue of authority.

1.We all (Christians) believe in the inspiration of the Bible

I have not yet seen anyone disagree with this here, although I know there are people who claim to be Christians, but equally claim that the Bible is not inspired… Naturally, I do not agree with this!

2.“Infallible” Catholic teaching is at times directly contradictory to the Bible

I agree, however, the big problem here is the chicken-and-egg problem. As mentioned above, the differences in teaching come down to Sola Scripture.

So, to show the teaching differs, we have to ignore the RC Teachings that ‘reinterpret’ the Bible. But to do that, we usually have to show that some RC teachings are wrong. But to do that, we have to show them that they are not compatible with the Bible. But to do that, we have to ignore the Teachings that ‘reinterpret’ the Bible…

An example: “Mary was always a virgin”. Obviously, if one simply reads the Bible (such passages as Matthew 1:25, 12:46-47, 13:55, Mark 3:31-32, 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, 7:3-10), it is very clear that Jesus had physical siblings (as well as spiritual siblings) - indeed, if it were not for the comparison to the physical, born of Mary, siblings, the spiritual siblings comments would not make sense.

However, the Roman Catholic can read these verses and, because of the RC Traditions, accept that they are somehow not speaking of children of Mary, but something else.

(naturally, no every RC is like this - I have had RC friends who did not follow the teachings about mary being sinless or a virgin forever)

3.The Christian has no where left to go but Sola Scriptura

Indeed! And with 2 Timothy 3:16, why do we need Roman Catholic Traditions, which are, after all, traditions of men? (Matthew 15:2-6, Colossians 2:8)

Anyway, the rules I just agreed to said something about long posts, so I will cut it here, think and pray more, and answer again soon!

-hvg3

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I wanted my first post here to be in this topic

Indeed! And with 2 Timothy 3:16, why do we need Roman Catholic Traditions, which are, after all, traditions of men? (Matthew 15:2-6, Colossians 2:8)

Perhaps your second post can be on why you think 2 Tim. 3:16 means we don’t need Tradition?

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

God bless

 

[hvg3akaek]

Hello kleary!

You make some interesting clams, but I am wondering - can you back them up?

Wrong. Not one “Infallible” Catholic teaching contradicts, or has ever contradicted “The Bible”. If you are reading Scripture and interpret it wrongly (such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did) then you are presented with a problem now aren’t you.

I realise (as mentioned previously) that it will be a chicken-and-egg thing for either of us to prove the first part. However, I must ask - do you think you would reach the same conclusions as you have now, if you read only the scriptures and followed only them and the Spirit guiding you?

I, personally, cannot see that happening. I cannot see how such things as the above “Mary was always a virgin”, or even her sinlessness, or purgatory, or praying to saints or many others, can be found without the ‘interpretations’ of RC Tradition.

As to Luther etc, can you show how they were wrong? Without using RC Traditions? (thus, only with Scripture?)

For them disagreeing with RC Traditions does not show them to be wrong, if thats part of what they were arguing about!

This is exactly what the Protestant Reformers taught and believed. When they left the Church Jesus established, they had no choice but to go to “Scripture Alone” and “invent” a “new doctrine” called “Sola Scriptura”.

Ah, you make it sound so bad… After all, the “doctrine” of the Trinity was invented at some point. It was new. Was it wrong?

What about the “doctrine” (if this fits into that category) of the infallibility of the pope? It was only “made” around…dang, don’t have my books with me. Off my memory, 1600-1800 AD? pope Pious IX? Anyway, it wasn’t around for a long time then the RC “invented” it. Does this make it wrong?

(I am not saying it’s right Just that it is wrong for other reasons, not this)

Their “Doctrine” states: “All revealed truth is contained in Holy Scripture.” This is a false doctrine as proven and stated by the Council of Trent, convened to answer the Protestant heresies.

I would really like to see some proof for this. Firstly, their statement saying as much, and secondly the evidence against such a statement Forgive me if I don’t accept your statement as it is.

One I always throw out at these discussions is that the Canon of New Testament Scripture, the list, the knowledge of what books are “Scripture” is “A truth revealed by God”, and IT AIN’T IN THE BIBLE.

Hrmm…not sure what you are trying to imply here…are you suggesting that the canon of the NT was formed by people sitting around and God suddenly revealing to them which was correct? Personally, I thought it was more of seeing which were historically accurate, which were written my eye witnesses and apostles, and which matched up to scripture. Not really any need for revelation.

I follow Catholic Teaching, published by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical letter “Humanae Vitae”. My wife and I refuse to use any meathod of artificial contraception. (One meathod like “Birth Control Pills” - nowhere taught about in Scripture - another thing that proves Sola Scriptura false)

How does that show sola scripture to be false?

1. RCT says that contraception is wrong
2. the bible does not say it is wrong
3. therefore Sola Scripture is wrong.

Would it not be more logical to say:

1. RCT says that contraception is wrong
2. the bible does not say it is wrong
3. therefore contraception being wrong is wrong

In any case, #1 in both examples cannot be used to show Sola Scripture to be false, as it is begging the question - you are assuming something that is being argued!

 

[porthos11]

I apologize that I disappeared in the middle of the previous thread which is now way too long to catch up on (my life has a lot going on and unfortunately debating online sometimes loses the priority contest).

Anyway my defense of the doctrine basically was as follows:

1.We all (Christians) believe in the inspiration of the Bible

Why should we even believe that the Bible is inspired? Prove this one to be true first.

2.“Infallible” Catholic teaching is at times directly contradictory to the Bible

No it doesn’t at any time, but we leave that until you have addressed #1.

3.The Christian has no where left to go but Sola Scriptura

This COULD be only if you can reasonably prove #1 AND #2. But just prove #1 first. Why should we accept the Bible as inspired? In other words, why should we believe you when you make that claim?

 

[porthos11]

Hello Timmy Z!

I wanted my first post here to be in this topic, as I feel that every problem / issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants comes down to this issue of authority.

I have not yet seen anyone disagree with this here, although I know there are people who claim to be Christians, but equally claim that the Bible is not inspired… Naturally, I do not agree with this!

Why not? Ask Timmy Z first to prove his assertion that the Bible is inspired. Everything else hinges on it.