Sola Scriptura family problem

[huxy63]

Justasking4, you’ve mentioned several of your beliefs and what you believe the Bible to say. Since we come from different basis, we couldn’t theologically agree on this subject. However, just out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing if any else agrees with you. Did any of the Church Father teach Sola Scriptura?

 

[huxy63]

Justasking4, you’ve mentioned several of your opinions and what you believe the Bible means. Just out of curiosity. Do any of the Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura as you do?

 

[justasking4]

And those would be?

What process? The Catholic Church’s process of determining canonicity? What process do you suppose the CC used?

Was the book written by a prophet of God? Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? Did it come with the power of God? Was it accepted by the people of God? These are some of the principles and methods i’m aware of

You are using circular reasoning here. You say the scriptures make a compelling case about who God is and what He did and therefore the scriptures are infallible, but you presuppose that the information that builds this compelling case is true. A compelling case is only as good as the truth of the facts upon which it is built.
How is it circular? If God exists and is truly the Creator and did reveal Himself in nature and through the prophets and finally and fully in Christ as the scriptures claim and these facts are true, then i don’t see how this is circular. I’m trying to be brief and it would take some time to give reasons for example for the existence of God which i think can be done. Or take the scriptures historical reliablity. This to is on solid ground. We know Christ existed… right? Do we not also agree that the NT writers did tell the truth about Him? If these things are true, then i don’t see how its circular

You do qualify your next to last statement with “if the NT is right about Christ.” So without presupposing the Bible is infallible, how do you know it is infallible?

I base it on the existence of God as the Creator and that He could if He wanted to communicate with us if He wanted to. Thats what the scripture is about i.e. His revelation to us.

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4, you’ve mentioned several of your beliefs and what you believe the Bible to say. Since we come from different basis, we couldn’t theologically agree on this subject. However, just out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing if any else agrees with you. Did any of the Church Father teach Sola Scriptura?

How would you define sola scriptura?

To answer your question, i would have to do some research. I’m not that well informed about the fathers.

Do you believe everything your church teaches and supports?

 

[justasking4]

part 1

Justasking4;

Good morning from California and God bless you all on this thread!

1. Quit avoiding giving a direct answer to this question: What is the NT source for your claim that “It is only scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrant. No teacher, church or man is above them”?

I don’t remember seeing this question before/ Sorry about that. My answer would be from the the very nature of the scripture itself. A couple of passages i would use is 2 Tim 3:16-17, Hebrews 4:12. Are they not inspired by God? Doesn’t your church teach this?
If the Scriptures are truly from God and inspired by Him, how could any man or church be equal or above them?

I think a direct answer from you would be a great leap in moving forward on this (SS) issue.

1. How I read Scripture. I try to take into account the sacred authors’ intention. Similar to my undergraduate training and experience in languages and literature, I am mindful of the historical conditions, cultural conditions, the genres in use, the limitations of that language, the idiomatic expressions used. I do not this in a vacuum. I have the support of early Church Fathers (such as Sts Ambrose, Augustine and John Chrysostom, for example), translated copies of early Church documents showing the developing tradition and understanding of scriptural passages (such as the Didache). All of this in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written. I do not presume to know more than others who have committed their whole lives to understanding one Gospel or the letters of St Paul (and our Church history is replete with these individuals who have left books and handwritten manuscripts: all available in published form or via the Vatican website)

I understand that like the ancient Hebrews and their Tanakh, our Scriptures were written in more than one sense: the literal, the spiritual, the allegorical and the anagogical.

Its good you do these things. However, you to are left with your own private interpreations as protestants are in regards to what the scriptures mean.

Dante Alighieri in his Commedia is the classic literary example of this approach.

1. If you constantly look for permission to do or not do something in the Bible as it pertains to the Church’s political structure, its hierarchy, or its disciplines, you will be disappointed. There is a big difference between the rosary and the Sacraments, between celibate Roman rite priests and the Eucharist.

Jesus did not address how His Church was to be designed. Quit equating structure with substance.
This must not be so easily dismissed. The structure of the church as laid out by the apostle is something we must not trifle with. We must not circumvent what God has revealed to His church.

He did not set out the rules and regulations concerning the structure or if certain administrators were to be married or not.

You may want to read I Tim 3 again.

You are confusing St Paul with Jesus on this issue. You are equating St Paul’s advice and proposals to specific churches and problems with specific congregations as applying to 21st century America. I don’t see women covering their heads in Protestant services.
Thats a good point about women. I kinda think they should have their heads coevered.

It’s the cafeteria approach to scriptures again. This is the inconsistency that I referred to in my prior note.

I agree it does happen

You must be consistent with your belief. We can’t pick and choose, claiming certain passages have more weight than others or by saying what the writer *really *meant was this or that this is metaphorical way of saying so and so.

This is the very thing we must do to understand the scripture. Not all scripture is the same genre. We must understand the context, the circumstances, the figures of speech etc if we are to properly understand it. If we don’t then we are in danger of error which can lead to false teachings and practices

 

[justasking4]

parrt 2

Priests not marrying is a Roman Rite discipline. A Rite is the sum total of the forms and ceremonies of liturgical worship and the whole expression of the theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage of particular churches and communities of churches. Byzantine Rite priests are married. Anglican use priests marry (those are former Episcopalian and Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism). There are three whole parishes which converted in Houston, Texas. All of them have married, Catholic priests. Other Rites include Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Gallican, Alexandrian (subdivided into Coptic and Ethiopian), Antiochene, the Malankarese of India (which follows the liturgy of St James), and, the Maronites of Lebanon (the Christians of current news from that country verging on another civil war). Armenian Rite for those Catholics in Iraq, Turkey and Armenia. Chaldean Rite in Arabic.

You would agree that a catholic man born and raised in the chruch cannot become a priest–right?

Much of what St Paul recommended was followed by the Church as tradition, not doctrine.

What is the difference between tradition and doctrine?

What Jesus taught to the Apostles and what was handed down orally and in writing is doctrine, as determined by the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[justasking4]

I want to say that i have enjoyed engaging on these various topics with you all. Many of you have some good insights and i have learned alot from you. It has been challenging at times to say the least. Its refreshings to see so many catholics who are passionate about their faith even though i don’t agree on some important issues. I may not be able to engage as much in the future due to personal circumstances and time. So please don’t take this as some kind of insult.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
(2 Co 13:14).
<

 

[mikeledes]

The indestrutibility of the church does not include the predominance of false doctrine!? You seem to imply that Protestant churches have their own share of false doctrine. Can you mention one that doesn’t? If not, then I prefer to stick with the “false” Catholic Church then any false Protestant church. At least the Catholic church came first and has a continuous history that goes back to the first century.

French church leaders allied to the English during the Hundred Years War condemned Joan of Arc, not the Pope or a church council. Like I said, individual church membes can commit sins. That does not affect the validity of a church or its teachings. Otherwise, the whole Protestant Reformation would be a diabolical movement and all of its teachings false simply because of the atrocities the Reformers (Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) committed or encouraged. And yet, you are Protestant.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[huxy63]

To say 2 Tim 3:16-17 supports Sola Scriptura is a non-sequiteur. This passage is talking about how good the Bible is. It has nothing to do with if the Bible is the complete final Word of God.

Hebrews 4:12 uses the word Word, but to Catholics, the Word is the Living Body of Christ (John 1:1). Terminology differences here.

 

[huxy63]

How would you define sola scriptura?

To answer your question, i would have to do some research. I’m not that well informed about the fathers.

Do you believe everything your church teaches and supports?

Few people have asked me the same question. The question seems to me to be asking: Do I believe in an established organization, or do I believe my own thoughts and feelings. If I believe in an established organization, that’s humility. I humble myself to a recognized authority. If I believe my own thoughts and feelings, that’s pride. It’s also arrogance. I place myself above anyone else, regardless if what I think coincides with the authority or not, as if I know better than they do.

I did not randomly decide to follow the Catholic Church, even through I’m a cradle Catholic. After much research and prayer and searching, I came to the inevitable conclusion that the Catholic Church is everything She says it is. I also came to the conclusion that Protestant churches are built on shifting sand. The Protestant churches of the 1500s are different than the 1600s are different than the 1700s.

Nevertheless, Jesus does not want us to submit like robots. There’s no love involved in submission. Instead, He wants us to learn and understand and live the teachings that His Church provides. The Church teaches, and therefore it is my duty to understand that teaching. Perhaps this isn’t true for all Catholics, but this is true for me.

To answer your question, after much research, so far, yes, I believe everything that the Church teaches and supports.

 

[petra]

petra:

What process? The Catholic Church’s process of determining canonicity? What process do you suppose the CC used?

Was the book written by a prophet of God? Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? Did it come with the power of God? Was it accepted by the people of God? These are some of the principles and methods i’m aware of.

How do you know if the book of Hebrews was written by a prophet of God? The author is unknown. Proverbs was not written by a prophet, but rather by a king. What exactly does it mean that it “comes with the power of God”? What rubric or instrument do you use to measure the authenticity of an inspired writing? Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd John were not widely accepted by the people of God. They were classed among the Disputed Books.

And you still think that the Catholic Church could have correctly chosen that which was inspired without the God-given assurance of infallibility? Next time you quote your Bible as the sole source of truth, you are doing so without sufficient rational basis. As a Bible-only Christian, you are the beneficiary of the infallibility of the Catholic Church. You undermine the basis of your belief in the Bible every time you attack the Church and criticize her for doctrines that are not spelled out letter by letter. Sola scriptura is untenable.

petra:

You do qualify your next to last statement with “if the NT is right about Christ.” So without presupposing the Bible is infallible, how do you know it is infallible?

I base it on the existence of God as the Creator and that He could if He wanted to communicate with us if He wanted to. Thats what the scripture is about i.e. His revelation to us.

You are taking a very low view of Christ. In the fullest and most complete sense, He is the Word of God and revelation to us. Why do you take that away from Him?

Blessings,

petra

 

[petra]

petra:

This question doesn’t really make sense. Doctrine and moral teachings are infallible. As far as I know, the Church doesn’t attempt to define terms infallibly.

Then how do you know what they teach are true?

The Church is not in the business of publishing dictionaries. It is a shepherd of Christ’s flock and teaches doctrine and moral values infallibly.

petra:

Do you mean, “What sacred tradition do you have that is not in the scripture?” A more accurate question would be, “What teachings have been preserved through Sacred Tradition that are not fully articulated in Scripture?” Examples would be the Trinity, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary. Almost everything the Church teaches is at least alluded to in scripture and nothing contradicts it.

Almost anything can be “alluded” to and mean to say anything. Where is it alluded to that the NT teaches you are to pray to Mary?

See catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

petra:

So why were early Christians so confused about what was canonical if it was so obvious to the average person?

I don’t know if they were confused as such but the leadership in the 2-3rd century realised they needed to define what the canon was in light of various heritics.

You are dodging the question. If the canon was so obvious and could be humanly determined by any of the criteria you have cited recently, why did the Early Church classify Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd John among the Disputed Books?

petra:

What it is about the “nature of Scripture” that would enable you to select inspired writings from non-inspired writings?

I can only go on what we have today. In my study on this issue, both catholic and protestant agree. if i did not have any understanding of the scripture, i would not be able to truly tell.

I have no idea what you mean here.

How did the Jews determine what the canon of the OT was without the catholic church?

They didn’t. The Jews did not have an official canon until after the death of Christ at the Council of Jamnia. Prior to that time, different sects had different collections. The Saducees, Pharisees, and general Jewish population all referred to different collections.