Sola Scriptura Defined

[Mannyfit75]

Protestants do not refer to Sola Scripture as containing all knowledge.What Protestants mean by Scripture alone is that God’s written Word is the final authority.

So, if what you say disagrees with Scripture we will alway take Scripture over your opinion.

Scripture is not the only Word of God. It’s also founded in ancient Christian Traditions because the Bible itself derive from oral teachings.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I do agree that Scripture is the Word of God, but it’s not the Living Word of God because the Living Word of God is Jesus Christ. Christianity isn’t based on the religion of the book. The Early First Christians didn’t even have the complete Bible in their days. During the time of the Apostles, the Apostle preached orally.

 

[Ginger2]

Via an oral tradition.

Jesus wasn’t talking in their ears when they were writing the Scriptures. They were writing down what they had memorized and sung throughout the years. The Holy Spirit was protecting them from writing down anything incorrectly, but they weren’t receiving locutions from on high - they were just writing down part of the content of the Oral Tradition.

There is a big different between Jesus speaking, and the Apostles who heard Jesus speak and wrote his deeds and words down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

and generations of men who have never seen Jesus nor the Apostles.

We have the Apostles inspired writings. They left nothing out that we NEEDED to know. So, why do I need to be concerned over the new “revelations” that continue to come out of the RC?

Name one essential element that has been omitted from Scripture.

 

[Ginger2]

I do agree that Scripture is the Word of God, but it’s not the Living Word of God because the Living Word of God is Jesus Christ. Christianity isn’t based on the religion of the book. The Early First Christians didn’t even have the complete Bible in their days. During the time of the Apostles, the Apostle preached orally.

True. The early Christians had Jesus, then the eyewitnesses (ie the Apostles) then the complete Scriptures.

 

[mgrfin]

Protestants do not refer to Sola Scripture as containing all knowledge.What Protestants mean by Scripture alone is that God’s written Word is the final authority.

So, if what you say disagrees with Scripture we will alway take Scripture over your opinion.

Well, my ‘opinion’ is the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is protected from error, and guided by the Holy Spirit.

As for “Scripture”, we don’t have the original of these books; we have translations, and sometimes translations of translations, dating from the 3rd, 4th, or 5th century.

It was the infallible Catholic Church that determined the Canon of Scripture, so what books are there, and their preservation through the centuries is due to the Catholic Church.

Now as far as what you mean from a particular text, I can quote to you Scriptural texts regarding the institution of the Eucharist, yet your ‘personal interpretation’ does not agree with what the infallible Catholic Church believes and has taught about this Sacrament since the founding of the Church.

So, you just jump into this Scripture and Sola Scriptura thing as though it has any superiority to the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition and the Holy Scripture.

We won’t allow you to get away with that heresy.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

There is a big different between Jesus speaking, and the Apostles who heard Jesus speak and wrote his deeds and words down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

and generations of men who have never seen Jesus nor the Apostles.

We have the Apostles inspired writings. They left nothing out that we NEEDED to know. So, why do I need to be concerned over the new “revelations” that continue to come out of the RC?

Name one essential element that has been omitted from Scripture.

Whoa…a few heresies here.

The Deposit of faith was complete with the death of St. John the Evangelist.

There have never been ‘new ‘’‘revelations’’’ that come out of the RC."

What is “RC”? A little more respect. It is Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church.

BTW what is the ‘church’ you belong to? You don’t seem to want any of us to know. Are you embarassed by it? Maybe it is ‘church of self’.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

There is a big different between Jesus speaking, and the Apostles who heard Jesus speak and wrote his deeds and words down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

and generations of men who have never seen Jesus nor the Apostles.

We have the Apostles inspired writings. They left nothing out that we NEEDED to know. So, why do I need to be concerned over the new “revelations” that continue to come out of the RC?

Name one essential element that has been omitted from Scripture.

I am not sure of this but I would suggest “The “Filoque”, and 'Patrem omnipotentem, visibilium et invisibilium…”

 

[Mannyfit75]

True. The early Christians had Jesus, then the eyewitnesses (ie the Apostles) then the complete Scriptures.

The Church Councils completed the Scripture and made them so Canonical. I do believe we already have this discussion, so we don’t need to go there.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Originally Posted by Ginger2
Protestants do not refer to Sola Scripture as containing all knowledge.What Protestants mean by Scripture alone is that God’s written Word is the final authority.

So where does the Bible teach this concept of “Final Authority”?

 

[Ginger2]

As you rightly should.

The problem comes when two people read the same Scriptures and come up with different interpretations. That’s when we need to look to the Oral Tradition, to see what the author originally intended to mean.

What you are over-looking is that some people will interpret Scripture according to what they want to believe.

Scripture says so.

You can show them whatever proofs you want - it won’t make any difference because they chose to believe what pleases them.

Scripture says so.

However, I do look to see what the author originally meant. I look at the context. I look at how the listeners responded to the words that were said. I look up the meaning of the original word used because too often the English provides a poor translation. I research the culture (sometimes) And I cross reference OT and NT.

But the most useful tool I have found is prayer.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What you are over-looking is that some people will interpret Scripture according to what they want to believe.

Scripture says so.

You can show them whatever proofs you want - it won’t make any difference because they chose to believe what pleases them.

Scripture says so.

I came sum on Scripture Alone. "The person can individual interpret Scripture what he sees fit with no aid from someone. He thus becomes personal magisterium. In otherwords, they are their own popes. They can bind and loose what they see fit if its in the bible… "

 

[Ginger2]

Do you really think God is that limited? Do you think God cannot open a man’s mind to understanding without showing him an explanation written in the Catechism?

Jesus appeared to Saul and opened his mind to knowledge of the Christ and God’s plan for salvation without the assistance of a single Apostle.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do you really think God is that limited?

Nope. He is infinite, we are finite. He even granted his Apostles the power to forgive sins, whom handed this authority to there successor the bishops and priests.

Yet many Protestants admit that priest can’t do it. They can’t. God uses priest to forgive sins. Catholics believe that God can do all things possible. The belief of Real Presence, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are all link to God’s power. Yet, many Protestants deny this.

So the questions goes back to Protestants. Do you think God is that limited?

To them, yes. Because they don’t believe a priest can forgive sins by the power of God, nor believe the Ever Virgin Mary.

Do you think God cannot open a man’s mind to understanding without showing him an explanation written in the Catechism?

He can. He does it through His Church.

Jesus appeared to Saul and opened his mind to knowledge of the Christ and God’s plan for salvation without the assistance of a single Apostle.

Really. Read you Acts again. Jesus send Ananias to baptised Paul (See Acts 9:1-20) and before Paul started his minister, he remain with Peter for 15 days (See Gal 1:18).

 

[Ginger2]

Paul said he received the Gospel from Christ Jesus.

 

[Stratiotes]

What is the Latin word for “personal interpretation”?
I think we should just change the title to the Latin version of:

“Personal interpretation of scripture alone”.

O Solo mio?



I think the definition you gave would fly in most reformed circles but the observation has been made that not all Protestants would agree. Ultimately it is very much like protestant interpretation - it means whatever the person using the term wants it to mean.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Paul said he received the Gospel from Christ Jesus.

He did but since he didn’t know anything about the life of Jesus Christ because he did not live with him, he went to Jerusalem, where he learn from one of the Apostles; Peter. He did not see other Apostles except James. They know about the life of Jesus Christ. I don’t think Paul was vacationing with Peter for 15 days to hang out for fun. Paul’s love for Christ gave him the thirst to learn about how Jesus lived, died, and was raised from the dead, and how he died for our sins.

It’s like someone today who convert to Catholicism. They hunger for the Truth. They seek Christ and they want to know him. There are still many things I want to learn about My Lord…

It was the Apostles who told Paul about the breaking of the Bread in 1 Corinthians 11… and such. Jesus didn’t appear to Paul and told him his entire life story.

We see Paul converted and like everyone else. He was baptized by Ananias as commanded by Jesus Christ.

 

[mgrfin]

What you are over-looking is that some people will interpret Scripture according to what they want to believe.

Scripture says so.

You can show them whatever proofs you want - it won’t make any difference because they chose to believe what pleases them.

Scripture says so.

However, I do look to see what the author originally meant. I look at the context. I look at how the listeners responded to the words that were said. I look up the meaning of the original word used because too often the English provides a poor translation. I research the culture (sometimes) And I cross reference OT and NT.

But the most useful tool I have found is prayer.

There are no “Sola Scriptura” proofs in the Bible. This is a fiction made up by Luther, Calvin, and the Protestants of the 16th Century.

If you look at the Scriptural proofs of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, look at the reaction of the listeners in John 6. They clearly understood that Christ was talking to them of giving them his Flesh to eat, and his Blood to drink. “And many walked away for this was a hard saying”.

Look at the words of the Eucharist in the Gospels. The institution of the Sacrament of Penance. The Founding of the Church on Peter. The Promise of the Paraclete, and the protection from error.

You take the Scriptures to mean what you want them to mean, or, not to mean what they say.
Private interpretation serves two masters, both of which are erroneous, both of which keeps you from the truth.

So, re: the Eucharist, for example, how do you interprete:
Ex 12:21-28 Passover Lamb
Mt 26: 26-28
Mk 14: 22-25
Lk 22: 14-20
Jn 1: 28-30
Jn 6: 35-58
1 Cor 10: 16
1 Cor 11: 23-29
Jn 1: 28-30

You take the New Testament passages on the Eucharist not to mean what Catholics live and practice from the times of Acts, cause it would mean you are wrong.

maranatha

 

[mgrfin]

Paul said he received the Gospel from Christ Jesus.

Could you give us the Chapter and verse for that? Please. Thank you.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Jesus appeared to Saul and opened his mind to knowledge of the Christ and God’s plan for salvation without the assistance of a single Apostle.

We love St. Paul. But the Apostles examined this killer of Christians very carefully, until they were sure he had it right.

Paul was paired with Barnabas, and with other disciples. What a foolish thing to say. Read it for yourself in Acts.

peace

 

[Pug]

Could you give us the Chapter and verse for that? Please. Thank you.

peace

I assume this verse is meant from Gal 1

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.