Sola Scriptura Defined

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Check the verse afterwards,

13 For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion: how that,*** beyond measure***, I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. 14 And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. 17 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. 18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Jesus did reveal himself to Paul on his road to Damascus. He was told by Jesus that Paul, then Saul, he was persecuting the Church. As you noticed, Jesus didn’t go at length telling his entire life story. To know that, he had to go to Jerusalem and remain with Peter for 15 days. During that time, Peter probably told how he and the other 11 Apostles encountered Jesus Christ for the first time.

If you wonder how Paul learn about the breaking of the bread. I believe he was told about the breaking of the bread from Peter.

 

[Pug]

Check the verse afterwards,

I am aware of the rest of Galatians. I just wished to indicate the place that the person probably was getting the idea, since an actual verse was asked for. I assumed people would read the whole section for themselves. For example, further on it says:

2:2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

This shows clearly that he was not averse to speaking with others about the topic of the gospel to the Gentiles, although this particular example was many years later. Also in Acts, we see Jesus telling Saul/Paul to listen and be told what to do (about what exactly it doesn’t say).

9:5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.”

I was just chatting.

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. But the full implications of what they preached and wrote were not worked out by them. Their successors - the Church Fathers, Popes and Bishops united in Council - have exercised their divine office to carry on from where the Apostles left off. The Catholic Church does not introduce new revelations but simply makes what is implicit in Scripture explicit when defining doctrines: the Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Immaculate Conception, etc… The early Reformers distorted Sacred Scripture and defied Sacred Tradition by adding to and removing from the Bible: They removed the seven Deuterocanonical Books of the OT, having erroneously and unauthoritatively branded them as apochrypha; they created novel unscriptural doctrines by reading into the texts: ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’, for instance. The Catholic Church is the only true biblical Church, since she was founded by Christ himself - not by mortal men.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[mgrfin]

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. But the full implications of what they preached and wrote were not worked out by them. Their successors - the Church Fathers, Popes and Bishops united in Council - have exercised their divine office to carry on from where the Apostles left off. The Catholic Church does not introduce new revelations but simply makes what is implicit in Scripture explicit when defining doctrines: the Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Immaculate Conception, etc… The early Reformers distorted Sacred Scripture and defied Sacred Tradition by adding to and removing from the Bible: They removed the seven Deuterocanonical Books of the OT, having erroneously and unauthoritatively branded them as apochrypha; they created novel unscriptural doctrines by reading into the texts: ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’, for instance. The Catholic Church is the only true biblical Church, since she was founded by Christ himself - not by mortal men.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Et cum spiritu tuo.

Excellent post. Nice summary answer

Maranatha

 

[mgrfin]

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.

“…not all Protestants would agree.”

Well, that should come as a surprise. What unites them is opposition to Catholicism. But left on their own, they wind up eating each other.

maranatha

 

[Ginger2]

Originally Posted by Ginger2 View Post
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.

But the Bible says Paul stayed several days in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, …

Paul began preaching in Damascus - not Jerusalem.

Paul said he received the Gospel from Jesus Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It was the Apostles who told Paul about the breaking of the Bread in 1 Corinthians 11… and such.

This must be your private interpretation, as Paul does not say he learned this from the Apostles, but says he received from the Lord

But I want to be open minded about this. You are Catholic. You believe what the church teaches over what the Scriptures say. Show me where the Catechism says Paul received his teaching/ministry from the Apostles.

Jesus didn’t appear to Paul and told him his entire life story.

And how do you know this? Do you think this is impossible - even for God? What does the Catechism say?

 

[Ginger2]

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. But the full implications of what they preached and wrote were not worked out by them.

That doesn’t answer my question: Name one essential element that has been omitted from Scripture.

I’ve asked this in many threads and I’m still waiting …

 

[Ginger2]

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

Gal 1:12

You should read your Bible more often and you would be able to find these verses for yourself.

 

[savedsinner]

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.

The issue here is not that essential elements are omitted from scripture, the issue is that some things have been passed down Orally which are not clearly taught in scripture, such as the nature of the Trinity.

Are you saying that we don’t need to know that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, that he is one person of the Godhead of the Trinity, and that he has two natures, human and Divine, or are you saying that the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are clearly taught in scripture and don’t need to be explained or clairified any further?

If that is so, then maybe I should Join the Mormons, or the JW’s.

I think this was a big issue in the early church.

If scripture was sufficent in the teaching of the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity, then why did it take several church councils to hammer this one out?

Remember, it was the Arians who used scripture alone in defense of their error filled teachings, while the church defended the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity relying on both the Scriptures and the Oral traditions which were passed down from the Apostles.

It is not “new revelations” coming out of the Catholic Church, it is the church clairifying what has already been passed down both in the written and oral forms.

 

[Ginger2]

The issue … is that some things have been passed down Orally which are not clearly taught in scripture,…

Scripture is very clear to me…

Are you saying that we don’t need to know that Jesus is both fully human and fully God,

No. I am not saying that.

are you saying that (some things in Scripture) don’t need to be explained or clairified any further?

.
Yes. I am saying that.

If that is so, then maybe I should Join the Mormons, or the JW’s.

Remember, it was the Arians who used scripture alone in defense of their error filled teachings, …

Remember, Jesus spoke in parables Matt13 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Do you think you can explain what God has hidden …

it is the church clairifying what has already been passed down both in the written and oral forms.

…and those it is hidden from will suddenly believe because you explained it?

The church may teach. But if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

 

[Lampo]

That doesn’t answer my question: Name one essential element that has been omitted from Scripture.

I’ve asked this in many threads and I’m still waiting …

First, ALL of God’s revelation is essential. Or do you believe in essentials and non-essentials. If you do, could you show me the list of essentials and the list of the non-essentials in Scripture?

Something essential that has been omitted from Scripture: That the author of the Gospel of Mark is St. Mark.

 

[JoeyWarren]

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.

Originally Posted by Peter Da Rock
So where does the Bible teach this concept of “Final Authority”?

Ginger could you please answer Peter’s question?

 

[mozart-250]

First, ALL of God’s revelation is essential. Or do you believe in essentials and non-essentials. If you do, could you show me the list of essentials and the list of the non-essentials in Scripture?

Something essential that has been omitted from Scripture: That the author of the Gospel of Mark is St. Mark.

Not to nitpick, but is the authorship of the Gospel of Mark a part of God’s revelation and an “essential”.

I mean, what would be the big deal if say tomorrow we stumbled upon archaeological proof that the author of the Gospel of Mark is actually St. Peter. How would that really impact Christianity?

By saying that it is a part of God’s revelation what you are saying is that the hypothetical above would be impossible.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Not to nitpick, but is the authorship of the Gospel of Mark a part of God’s revelation and an “essential”.

I mean, what would be the big deal if say tomorrow we stumbled upon archaeological proof that the author of the Gospel of Mark is actually St. Peter. How would that really impact Christianity?

By saying that it is a part of God’s revelation what you are saying is that the hypothetical above would be impossible.

For starters, the questions would begin with this one:

What else are Theologians and Historians wrong about concerning the Bible?

If the door is not ajar then it surely would be ajar now.

How many die hard fundamentalists would cry “That archaeological proof is a forgery?”

How many people currently ignore the archaelogical findings of Quran and it’s Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[Lampo]

Not to nitpick, but is the authorship of the Gospel of Mark a part of God’s revelation and an “essential”.

I mean, what would be the big deal if say tomorrow we stumbled upon archaeological proof that the author of the Gospel of Mark is actually St. Peter. How would that really impact Christianity?

By saying that it is a part of God’s revelation what you are saying is that the hypothetical above would be impossible.

Yep, I agree. I think I should wait until my 3rd cup of coffee to post here!

 

[Ginger2]

First, ALL of God’s revelation is essential. Or do you believe in essentials and non-essentials.

Where does the Catholic Church state that a person needs to know everything about God?

ISAIAH 40:28……There is no searching out of His understanding.

I am not saying that all knowledge is contained in Scripture. I am saying that I reject anything that contradicts Scripture.

2 TIMOTHY 3:15 “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Catholics include both OT and NT Scriptures as the inspired word of God.

Peter considered Paul’s writing as inspired Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16. Obviously the Apostles considered their writings (the NT) part of the Scriptures inspired Scriptures as well…

Isaiah said, "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

What Paul taught was according to Scripture.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jesus rebuked satan using Scripture.(Matthew 4) If it’s good enough for Jesus - it’s good enough for me!

 

[Deconi]

Name one essential element that has been omitted from Scripture.

I’ve asked this in many threads and I’m still waiting …

Where is the list of inspired books in Scriptures?

 

[Lampo]

Where does the Catholic Church state that a person needs to know everything about God?

I don’t think it does.

I am not saying that all knowledge is contained in Scripture. I am saying that I reject anything that contradicts Scripture.

So does the Church and nothing the Church teaches contradicts Scripture and vice versa.

2 TIMOTHY 3:15 “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

The Church agrees 100% with this passage. All Scripture is profitable. Notice it doesn’t say sufficient.

Catholics include both OT and NT Scriptures as the inspired word of God.

I know.

Peter considered Paul’s writing as inspired Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16. Obviously the Apostles considered their writings (the NT) part of the Scriptures inspired Scriptures as well…

Okay.

Isaiah said, "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

Alrighty.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

I’ve seen this before.

What Paul taught was according to Scripture.

Okay.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Very good.

Jesus rebuked satan using Scripture.(Matthew 4) If it’s good enough for Jesus - it’s good enough for me!

It should be!

Back to the OP. Is there an official authority I can go to to read what the definition of SS is and that all Protestants accept? Or is this an unfortunate, inevitable product of the Reformation and private interpretation?

 

[Ginger2]

Is there an official authority I can go to to read what the definition of SS is and that all Protestants accept?

What is the disagreement among Protestants?

Or is this an unfortunate, inevitable product of the Reformation and private interpretation?

It is not about private interpretation. It is about rejecting what is contrary to Scripture. Isaiah said, "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

 

[Lampo]

What is the disagreement among Protestants?

Maybe there isn’t one. Do all Protestant denominations agree with this definition of Sola Scriptura?

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

If you don’t know, why not? I can tell you the official definition of any doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. If all Protestant denominations agree with this definition, then I guess this is the official definition.

It is not about private interpretation. It is about rejecting what is contrary to Scripture. Isaiah said, "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

I’d say it is about private interpretation. SS by not being taught by the Church founded by Jesus Christ, by default must be from private interpretation of Scripture. SS didn’t exist for the first one thousand, five hundred years of Christianity. It came from the private interpretation of Martin Luther.