Sola Scriptura (continued)

[porthos11]

No, I reject some of the boks others have slipped into the Greek Bible

And yet, you believe it, and can offer no reason apart from my suggestion of Tradition, which you, yourself, admit would be two-way circular logic.

You throw out one idea because of what you see as circular logic, but accept another, despite of it.

I already said I’m rejecting Tradition too, so that should clear out any circular logic on my part. So now I accept neither Scripture nor Tradition as inspired. That leaves me with nothing. I will not try to defend Tradition using the same reasoning you use.

No, it is not because of me, but you. You are choosing to reject it, and you cannot shift the blame for your actions onto another.

And no, I am not failing to get you saved, as I cannot get you saved. I can only plant the seed or water it. It is God that grows it.

I am choosing to reject it because you haven’t shown me why I should even believe you when you declare the Bible as inspired or authoritative.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Yup, correct

Then you take the inspiration of the Bible, not from the Bible itself, but from what others have told you, your parents or pastor?

I am sorry, how do they fit together? Or are you meaning that without the Bible, you just have Traditions?

From the Catholic perspective, to have faith is to believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. Part of what is required in belief for this is belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The earliest Christians did not have Bibles, the books weren’t even all written yet, but they were saved - right?

We don’t need the Bible for salvation, for the Church tells its members what they must believe for salvation.

but, just so we are perfectly clear - you are expecting me to go to hell, if I don’t change my views?

Sorry, I don’t get to decide who goes to heaven or hell.

I wasn’t asking, just stating “Scripture Alone” does no mean “Scripture, and Scripture Alone”. The first means you can be saved without Scripture, the second one means you cannot.

Sorry, but I still don’t quite understand.

At the end of time, it will be like that Jesus, however, was not so an ‘apparent’ reveal.

But all that is required for our salvation has been revealed.

Why not?

Because not everything is in the Bible. We also have Sacred Tradtion.

It was both.

For agreeing on authorship, I would say it would be like determining the authorship of a letter today. You know if someone you know has written you the letter.

As for doctrine, there were many disagreements - some serious.

Its a lot easier to translate the Bible into a language than it is to teach everyone of that language Greek and Hebrew? Plus, you have to keep teaching every new generation that…

But you still have the issue of relying on someone else trying to convey what the original writer meant, right?

 

[NotWorthy]

That was not the question The question was for a verse containing the name of the author of Luke, and thus I provided

You, uh, don’t work for Microsoft Tech Support do you? I mean, yes, you answered the question, but…

 

[SPH1]

My answer is that your question is incorrect, and rests on a faulty assumption. That is why I cannot answer

You cannot answer because you have no means - other than yourself - of determing which among the various Protestant dogmas are correct. Baptism (infants/adults only, grace/no grace), Communion (real presence, spritual presence, symbolic only), Church (episcopacy, presbyterian, congregational). Complete chaos. The only thing you and all Protestants can agree on is that the Holy Catholic Church is wrong.

Thankyou. Although, you didn’t answer my question

I cannot, and it is not my place, to give a definitive answer as to who may ultimately be saved. That is for God alone. But I can affirm that, IMO, you’re in trouble.

I have nothing against Peter I have something against the exalted image the Roman Catholic Traditions holds of him.

I don’t know that I’ve met a Protestant who did not trash Peter to some extent. You included.

You ignore that it was Paul who corrected Peter. Surely this suggests that Paul had a higher role than Peter?

And it was ONLY Paul who could correct Peter*. Not Barnabas, not any of the Christians there assembled, not you. A churchman of similar standing: an apostle. And Paul made a point of referring to Peter as Cephas: Rock.

And I think that Paul thought it a “big deal” to confront “Rock.”

But what Paul did not do, nor could not do, was say that Peter somehow lost his Christ-given authority (as you and other Protestants do, or allude to.) Not for one second did Peter lose his Christ-given authority over the Church. Now, I’ve already shown that in John, Christ already looked at this future rebuke event and determined that it did not touch upon Peter’s position. But for you, I guess it means that even when wrong, Peter is still your religious leader.

• Or, more properly, point out to Peter his hypocrisy. It was for Peter to correct Peter…afterall, Paul is only correct because Peter agreed. If Peter said that Paul was WRONG, how could you determine who was correct?

your error here, and the rest of your post, is your failure to provide any backing to your opposing ideas. You believe them. Fine. But why should I?

You’re the one who said that Peter somehow lost his discipleship. You back it up. And I’ve referred throughout to sufficient Scripture, so as to satisfy even you. You choose to ignore.

But I do wish you’d refrain from the annoying - and presumably “triumphant?” - smileys.

 

[mayra_hart]

to hyg3akaek : the other day i check on your answers that you wrote about the quetions of posted. an there is one problem you still didn’t answer those questions. let me show you why: some tough questions for protestants: 1) says God created the world?universe out of nothing, ( your answer: genesis 1:1 “In the beginning ,when god created the heavens and the earth” this only show how god brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos. It doesn’t explain the how? 2)say Scripture is the sole authority(i.e.,there is no other authority for learning about God and /or salvation), your answer( not there. nor is there a verse that claims that my imaginary pet dog isn"t authoritative. 2 timothy 3:16 does, however, say that it is authoritative). first lets leave the dogs out of this. if we are going to talk about then we can open another forum. but going back to tim" all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation,for correction, and for training in righteousness" this doesn’t answer the question. an for this one iam going to quoted from david currie book “The Bible is useful for all of these, but this verse certainly never promotes Scripture as the final authority for our faith.” and just a reminder mr currie. was a former fundamentalist. 3) say salvation is attainable through faith alone, your answer ( Ephesians 2:8-9) and then i will quoted again from david currie “this verse says that we are saved by grace;that even the faith we have is a gracious gift;and that the works we do are nothing to boast of because they too are a gracious gift.—'God’s workmanship"in us.” hvg3akaek i don’t think you answer this question:shrug: lets keep going . on question num 4,5,6, your answer was ( Obviously not in the bible.) like the article say no verse in scripture provide the require information. so this mean that is you believe in sola scriptura we are the answer??? lets go to num7 “Explain the doctrine of the Trinity. YOUR ANSWER ( oh, you want " explanations” now?) yes i do. and then you added ( where is the verse that explain purgatory? Mary’s sinlessness? Mary’s perpetual virginity? indulgences?)… this are other forums. this one is about sola scriptura. and my article is about answering the questions. you said (matthew 28:19 backs up the trinity, no?) to aswer this one i went straight to the source the BIBLE. " IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER…HOLY SPIRIT: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the new testament of trinitarian belief." we both believe in trinity my friend but does the verse say" TRINITY".NO. But yes this verse back up the trinitarian belief.amen. in the same way there are verses that back up your above statements about Purgatory and Mary. next questions they ask the name of the author of the GOSPEL OF MARK, LUKE , AND MATTHEW. your answers ( matt 9:9, acts 15:39 colossians 4:14) none of them mention the authors of none of this gospels. the gospels are the gospels of jesus christ. but none of then tells you who the original author is? so basically you don’t know the answer either. And for the rest of your answer for the remaining last questions. none of your verses quoted answer them at all. so we are back at the beginning. iam still waiting for answers. the problem that not me as catholic and not as a fundamentalist have an answer for any of this.

 

[mayra_hart]

Scripture Alone **GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON **The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority, sola scriptura, is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is “useful” (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught, sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the Bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an “intolerable paradoxhttp://catholiceducation.org/images/religious%20general/biblesce.jpgScripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

It’s not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John’s Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a “Bible Christian” know the Bible is the Word of God? If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible 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."

 

[Randy_Carson]

sounds more like a basis, a start, to me. What is on the pillar, what is held by the foundation, that is important thing.

I can accept that…are you willing to accept that whatever is resting upon the pillar and foundation is by definition supported and protected thereby?

IOW, do you agree that according to Paul that “the truth” is supported and protected by the Church and not by the Bible? Well, here…take a close look:

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church…not a book according to this passage, right?

Now, if you agree with this and want to press on that the “truth” is the Word of God…well, AMEN!

The Church does support and protect the Word of God…the entire Word of God and not just the written portion of it. But should you take issue with that then I can still say, “AMEN!” because you have acknowledged that it is the Church which supports and protects the Bible and not the other way 'round.

Tell me, does the child support and protect the parent or does the parent support and protect the child? The Bible is ONE of the “offspring” of the Church, Tradition is another.

No, you reject it because you rely on your Traditions. Which you would claim are backed up in your bible. Which is read through the Traditions…

Would it be fair to say that you reject ALL tradition which cannot be supported by scripture?

 

[clmowry]

So where does it say which letters those would those be exactly?

Chuck

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You ignore that it was Paul who corrected Peter. Surely this suggests that Paul had a higher role than Peter?

No, it suggests that Peter needed to be corrected. Why is this a problem? Peter was human just like you and me.

Perhaps you might look up the definitions of the words “impeccability” and “infallibility”.

Peter was infallible by the grace of God, but he was not impeccable.

Oh, one more point: Paul corrected Peter for his personal behavior regarding the Gentiles and not for his formal teaching. Thus, Paul’s correction of Peter provides no comfort to those who seek to minimize the role of the Papacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by hvg3akaek forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You ignore that it was Paul who corrected Peter. Surely this suggests that Paul had a higher role than Peter?
But wait, Paul came to Peter to confirm all that Paul was going to teach. Surely this suggests that Peter had a higher role than Paul?

Will it go 'round in circles?

 

[El_camino]

NotWorthy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvg3akaek
You ignore that it was Paul who corrected Peter. Surely this suggests that Paul had a higher role than Peter?

But wait, Paul came to Peter to confirm all that Paul was going to teach. Surely this suggests that Peter had a higher role than Paul?

Will it go 'round in circles?

I do not believe that because Paul rebuked Peter, that meant that Paul had a higher role or authority within the Church.

This has not been the first time a Pope has been rebuked by someone.

For instance, in the 2nd century St. Ireneaus of Lyon rebuked pope Victor for excommunicating the Churches in Asia.

In the 12th century, St. Dominic rebuked Pope Inoncence.

Etc. etc. etc.

That does not mean that Ireneaus or St. Dominic had a higher authority than the respective popes of their times.

Gal 2, actually shows that PETER had a higher authority among all other apostles.

1. Gal 2:9 clearly says that Peter, John and James were PILLARS, what we today would call the CURIA. Paul came to Antioch to be confirmed by them.
2. Gal 2:7 says that the Gospel to the circumcised, that is to the JEWS had been committed to Peter, this sets Peter APART from all the others Apostles because Christ LEFT the GOSPEL to the JEWS. Why would PETER alone be to whom the Gospel of circumcision was committed? What about the other apostles??? The answer is obvious, Christ set Peter apart from all the other APOSTLES, and thus Peter is the Apostle to the JEWS par excellence, even though the other apostles had also been given the Gospel by Christ.
3. Now, Paul is no small matter as the GOSPEL TO THE uncircumcised, that is to the gentiles, was committed to him. So Paul was important, however, because CHRIST left the BELIEVER JEWS in charge of his gospel, it is obvious that the Apostolate to the gentiles had to submit, for the sake of unity, to the Apostolate to the JEWS. Thus Paul was an IMPORTANT figure (a cardinal if you may), in the Early Church, but important as he was, just like a cardinal today, he had to submit to the Pope (i.e., Peter).

It is amazing how clear the church hierarchy was even in the Early CHurch.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

hvg3akaek:

You ignore that it was Paul who corrected Peter. Surely this suggests that Paul had a higher role than Peter?

Like Wycliff himself said in 1380:
“How should God approve that you rob Peter, and give this robbery to Paul in the name of Christ.”–Select Works, III, 174

This is in fact, from where the common english phrase, to “rob Peter to pay Paul” comes from.

Many regards,

E.C.

 

[NotWorthy]

I do not believe that because Paul rebuked Peter, that meant that Paul had a higher role or authority within the Church.

This has not been the first time a Pope has been rebuked by someone.

I agree with everything you said. But are you sure of the facts on the underlined part. Unless you count Jesus’ rebuke of Peter, our first pope.

 

[El_camino]

I agree with everything you said. But are you sure of the facts on the underlined part. Unless you count Jesus’ rebuke of Peter, our first pope.

NotWorthy. Yes… As I mentioned St. Ireneaus rebuked Pope Victor for excommunicating the churhches in Asia, and St. Dominic rebuked pope Inocence, when Inocence said, showing St. DOminic the riches of the Vatican: “Peter cannot say Gold and silver I don’t have”, St. Dominic replied: “Yes, but also Peter can no longer say rise up and walk”.

Also, it was said that Joseph Ratzinger rebuked John Paul II for kissing the Coran. JPII meant well, when he did that, but the problem is that he gave to many the wrong impression.

And there are many other instances where popes have been rebuked.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy. Yes… As I mentioned St. Ireneaus rebuked Pope Victor for excommunicating the churhches in Asia, and St. Dominic rebuked pope Inocence, when Inocence said, showing St. DOminic the riches of the Vatican: “Peter cannot say Gold and silver I don’t have”, St. Dominic replied: “Yes, but also Peter can no longer say rise up and walk”.

Also, it was said that Joseph Ratzinger rebuked John Paul II for kissing the Coran. JPII meant well, when he did that, but the problem is that he gave to many the wrong impression.

And there are many other instances where popes have been rebuked.

Many blessings,

E.C.

E. C. My comment was a little joke (a real teeny-weeny joke, evidently).

You’re post originally said that Paul rebuking Peter was not the first time that the Pope was rebuked. And I’m thinking, “OK, how many popes were there before Peter to had been rebuked?”

I think you mean to say, “this is not the only time that the Pope was rebuked”.

 

[guanophore]

E. C. My comment was a little joke (a real teeny-weeny joke, evidently).

You’re post originally said that Paul rebuking Peter was not the first time that the Pope was rebuked. And I’m thinking, “OK, how many popes were there before Peter to had been rebuked?”

I think you mean to say, “this is not the only time that the Pope was rebuked”.

Jesus also told Peter “get thee behind me, satan”. Pretty harsh rebuke.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus also told Peter “get thee behind me, satan”. Pretty harsh rebuke.

When good jokes, go bad… Tonight at 6.

Yes, I think that was my original pooint to start this sad satire.

 

[Greg27]

The problem I had with Sola Scripture, apart from the rigidity it implied in interpreting the Bible, is the Bible is not a stand-alone text. There is always interpretation involved in understanding the meaning of the Bible, and this requires an interpreter. Interpretation then brings in the question of hermenutics, or ‘drawing out what the text means’, and also questions of truth and authority.

God bless the Protestants who taught us to pay close attention to the Bible and what it says, and the great effort they go into researching and understanding the meaning of the text. But one must remember the great Fathers and Saints and Doctors who formulated Church Doctrine, from St Iranaeus to St Augustine to St Thomas, immersed themselves deeply in scripture and based their theology firmly upon it. St Thomas for example, spent fifteen or so years studying theology and Biblical interpretation, and anyone who reads his work knows he basically lives and breathes scripture, even in his philosophical works. Protestants are not correct when they blindly assert the Church has simply rejected the truths in scripture in favour of ideas of men. What is more accurate is that the Church has collectively interpreted scripture and its meaning in the light of the times and also in the light of past history and tradition. Even Protestant theologians do this (such as Pannenburg or Barth) though they clearly reject some Catholic doctrines and are therefore not in union with the Church.

The rigor of Protestant Biblical criticism aside, the question of interpreting scripture is not just about the individual but also about his relation to a faith community and also to authority. The disunity amoung the numerous Protestant sects, from Calvinists to Lutherans to Baptists to Evangelicals to Pentecostals, in a lot of ways presents a great chaos and it is hard to know where the truth is. Who is right? Is the Lutheran right? Is the Calvinist right? What about the anabaptist? The evangelical? Or for that matter, is the Mormon right?

The problem I have with sola scripture and sola fide was basically there is more to interpreting the Bible than just the believer and these two elements. There is also the question of history and interpretation and whose interpretation is it, and on what grounds can we know someone’s interpretation is correct?

 

[El_camino]

E. C. My comment was a little joke (a real teeny-weeny joke, evidently).

You’re post originally said that Paul rebuking Peter was not the first time that the Pope was rebuked. And I’m thinking, “OK, how many popes were there before Peter to had been rebuked?”

I think you mean to say, “this is not the only time that the Pope was rebuked”.

Ohhh… yes yes… that is what I meant. THat is not the “only time” that a pope was rebuked…

Thanks for the correction and clarification.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I had not really wanted to ever respond to this thread, because I can not see any of the avid roman catholics within it ever changing their views from what they have been told is correct, no matter how obvious it is to them. but here i find myself…replying to such posts as:

But wait, Paul came to Peter to confirm all that Paul was going to teach. Surely this suggests that Peter had a higher role than Paul?

Will it go 'round in circles?

and continually being amazed that people think such ‘arguments’ as the above actually show them to be right. Does a circle do anything for the RC stance? No! What does it do? Well, the most logical (and obvious) conclusion is that they are on equal footing. There is no ‘pope’ hierarchy. They are both there to do the job that Jesus set before them - to share the good news of Jesus with others. This only becomes a problem when some folk want to erect them up on pedestals, and beef their own name up because they think they are great by following in the supposed great line of those who lived in humility…

The simple end point to this is: where differences arise, whose side do we take? The ‘traditions’? or the Bible’s?

If the Roman Catholic church only contained Traditions that were soundly based in the Bible, there would be no problem! But they teach things that are not soundly based in the Bible! Purgatory is not soundly based in the Bible. Mary’s perpetual virginity is not soundly based in the Bible. The idea of the pope is not soundly based in the Bible.

For sure, if you twist and cut certain passages, you can make them agree, or at least not disagree, with these ‘doctrines’, but the point remains: you have to start outside of God’s word, and force the Bible to agree with what mankind is teaching.

This is wrong.

And, as clearly has been shown time and time again, trying to show this to those who already happily allow God’s word to be changed and overwritten by that of men, it is a very fruitless endeavour. And so I shall leave this thread