Sola Scriptura: Historically Sound

[kaycee]

The following website proves that scripture definitely can be twisted:
“Why Woman Need Freedom From Religion”

ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

Excuse me! Let me be more precise. You May not, or Should not twist scripture. :tsktsk:

Dont think anyone denies it can’t and isn’t done.

 

[kaycee]

A PARTIAL List of Catholic Traditions

Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

By the way, why do you seek a list from an authority you refuse to recognize, anyway?

I was’nt looking for any old list, **just the oral God-Breathed tradition that Paul, mentions **in 2 Thes. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

My guess is Paul’s list is alot shorter than yours.

I prefer God-Breathed revelation that has a bit more substance.

If you want it simply because you think we must recognized such a list, then please understand that as Catholics, we don’t need a list because we have a living Teaching Authority to tell us what is and isn’t Sacred Tradition.

I’m sure it helps a great deal to see the cup half full.

As for twisting scripture, who tries to declare that they are justified by “faith alone” when James 2:24 clearly says the exact opposite?

You got me there. Who needs Romans, Ephesians, Galations, John 3:16!

Or that “sola scriptura” is valid when the Bible itself teaches no such thing.

Those poor deluded Bereans

 

[JoeyWarren]

You got me there. Who needs Romans, Ephesians, Galations, John 3:16!

Everyone, when read in the proper context of the entire New Testament.

Even the Methodist got ti right…

Originally Posted by JoeyWarren on another threadforums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Faith and Good Works

United Methodists insist that faith and good works belong together. What we believe must be confirmed by what we do. Personal salvation must be expressed in ministry and mission in the world. We believe that Christian doctrine and Christian ethics are inseparable, that faith should inspire service. The integration of personal piety and social holiness has been a hallmark of our tradition. We affirm the biblical precept that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17).

Excerpt from The United Methodist Primer, 2005 Revised Edition by Chester E. Custer (Discipleship Resources, 2005); p. 59.

 

[Janet_S]

A question for any non-Catholic Christians and/or sola Scriptura advocates

Is there any evidence in the Bible or in the ECF’s writings or in any historical documents that the pre-Reformation Church believed and practiced the doctrine of sola Scriptura as Protestants do today? More specifically, is there evidence that the early Church believed and practiced all these 5 things before the Reformation:

1. Only those things found within the pages of Scripture are binding on the conscience of the Christian.
2. The Bible is materially sufficient (contains all things necessary for a Christian to believe).
3. The Bible is formally sufficient (the Bible clearly explains itself and needs no infallible interpretor).
4. The Church has authority, but it is does not have infallible authority, and therefore, cannot bind the conscience of the Christian.
5. Individual Christians have an absolute right to private interpretation when they read Scripture since the Bible alone can bind the Christian conscience.

Please show me evidence that all these beliefs were taught and practiced, particularly by the early Church. I have read some of the ECF’s, and while they often appeal to Scripture, they also appeal to the authority of the Church.

If there is no evidence that all these beliefs were taught and practiced by the early Church or taught in the Bible, then the only conclusion I can come to is that the doctrine of sola Scriptura itself is a “tradition of men.”

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[NotWorthy]

Kaycee, in a response to an inquiry about there being more than just faith necessary, you quoted,

You got me there. Who needs Romans, Ephesians, Galations, John 3:16!

Those poor deluded Bereans

For my edification, can you define faith? Is it nothing more than belief, as your post seems to indicate. Does it include obedience or that optional.

 

[Beyrak]

Kaycee, in a response to an inquiry about there being more than just faith necessary, you quoted,

For my edification, can you define faith? Is it nothing more than belief, as your post seems to indicate. Does it include obedience or that optional.

Faith = belief!

So what, even Satan even believes in God and knows Jesus is the Savior to the world. But faith without works is dead!

 

[NotWorthy]

Faith = belief!

So what, even Satan even believes in God and knows Jesus is the Savior to the world. But faith without works is dead!

I’m sorry, but Faith is much more than belief.

I’d like to know if Kaycee agrees or not.

 

[Beyrak]

I’m sorry, but Faith is much more than belief.

I’d like to know if Kaycee agrees or not.

It doesn’t matter if you disagree, it doesn’t change a thing. It is what it is.

Faith is a noun, not a verb.

Excerpt from Catholic Dictionary: "The word “Faith” does itself contain the notion of belief is clear from the use of the radical, which in the causative conjugation, or Hiph’il, means “to believe”, e.g. Gen., xv, 6, and Deut., i, 32, in which latter passage the two meanings – viz. of believing and of trusting – are combined. That the noun itself often means faith or belief, is clear from Hab., ii, 4, where the context demands it."

 

[Chancellare]

Culliton lays out his complaint in no uncertain terms:Seeds of doubt are exactly what Catholic apologists are trying to plant in the minds of anyone who is willing to learn of Christ through His word. If they are going to convince people that the Catholic Church has greater authority than the Bible, they know they must somehow undermine biblical authority without damaging its inerrancy.
What he calls “seeds of doubt” are, in fact, steps in a logical argument. The fact that he doesn’t like where they lead is beside the point.

Culliton is either a beginning apologist or simply a lousy one. He assembles a weak straw man and fails to topple it convincingly.

I found a book which I believe traced the beginnings of “seed of doubt”. Title: “Radical Enlightenment”.
It’s quite clear to me that this so-called “seeds of doubt” was in fact began by the protestantism even before Luther started questioning a lot of things during the pre-reformation. It stretched a period of about 150 years encompassing the thoughts of Erasmus to Descartes to Spinoza, etc. These people succeeded in supplanting the Aristotelian philosophy with the philosophy that puts premium on disbelief over belief; that there is no absolute truth, including God. These are the seedbed of Protestantism and its branches such as Calvinism, and the rest of the caboodle.

Seeds of doubt? Catholicism is the last place for Culliton to ask this question. He should be talking to the choir on his back.

 

[Janet_S]

Here is an article by James Akin, “The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura.”
cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm

According to JA’s article, Sola Scriptura could not have been the historical rule of faith for the early Christians:

“Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!”