Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[sola_scriptura]

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

I’m a four-year revert, not a scholar on these matters, so I’ll be happy to receive correction of Catholic posters if I’m off-base here.

I think you’re judging a statement by the pope by the standards of sola scriptura–a standard that fails both for Scripture and for Sacred Tradition.

In other words, the statement should require no further need for interpretation. Unfortunately, while the writer or speaker (the writers of the Bible or the pope) may be inspired for a particular statement, the words are read and misinterpreted by us fallen humans.

Vigorous debate can be healthy and lead to spiritual growth. However, if the Church would be led astray, the Holy Spirit acts through the successor to St. Peter and Apostles to clarify.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. However, I’m raising a somewhat different point – and I guess I’m looking at this topic with a more narrow lens. What I’m driving at is any claim that a teaching is apostolic in nature and we understand an apostolic teaching on a particular matter because it was handed down through oral tradition is difficult to maintain if there were vigorous debates over these questions as early as the second century.

In other words no where will Irenaeus, Origen, or Tertullian say that Marian dogma was taught to them by an apostolic father (Ignatius, Clement, or Polycarp). It is believed that Irenaeus learned under Polycarp for a short period (they were from the same hometown), but the exegesis of Irenaeus concerning Mariology was not an inheritance from Polycarp (and he never claimed it was). It was his own deductions and he never lied and tried to claim otherwise. He was simply not given any information from any apostolic father that clarified the role of Mary in the economy of salvation. Moreover, in the epistles of the apostolic fathers Mary is given no role in the economy of salvation.

For instance, Origen would say a sinless Mary was impossible, while Ireneaus went a different direction (drawing the typological nexus between Mary and Eve). A student of Irenaeus also drew this same parallel (it’s possible that the student, whose name escapes me right now, actually came up with the typology). They both used a quote from Clement eluding to solely the virgin birth. The church wound up coming up with, on its own accord without any actual apostolic support, the idea that a sinless Mary was required for the purity of Christ (in other words it was originally a doctrine that was very Christological in nature). This idea also played a role in the doctrine of perpetual virginity (along with some alleged support from Ezekiel 44, which is exegetical leap).

Leaving aside the question of how “church” should be defined (and whether it’s fair to say the RCC is the “one true church of Christ”) all I’m saying is there was no perfect continuum of knowledge in areas that are outside of scripture. To move a step further, not long after the apostolic fathers were dead (within a matter of decades) church leaders were already debating these doctrines because they were not enumerated by either the apostles or any apostolic father.

Logically speaking the validity of RCC doctrine rides solely on its premise that it is the one true church and as such cannot err is material matter of faith and morals. The RCC has created various avenues of infallibility. Not only are Papal declarations (made within a certain format) infallible, not only are ecumenical councils infallible, but there is also Sacred and Ordinary Magisterium. In other words if a doctrine has been around for long enough it must be right.

I guess I’d like to address the idea of “the church” and the maxim that the devil will never prevail against it – but IMO the instant issue is probably more important (and frankly less speculative).

 

[twb1621]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. However, I’m raising a somewhat different point – and I guess I’m looking at this topic with a more narrow lens. What I’m driving at is any claim that a teaching is apostolic in nature and we understand an apostolic teaching on a particular matter because it was handed down through oral tradition is difficult to maintain if there were vigorous debates over these questions as early as the second century.

In other words no where will Irenaeus, Origen, or Tertullian say that Marian dogma was taught to them by an apostolic father (Ignatius, Clement, or Polycarp). It is believed that Irenaeus learned under Polycarp for a short period (they were from the same hometown), but the exegesis of Irenaeus concerning Mariology was not an inheritance from Polycarp (and he never claimed it was). It was his own deductions and he never lied and tried to claim otherwise. He was simply not given any information from any apostolic father that clarified the role of Mary in the economy of salvation. Moreover, in the epistles of the apostolic fathers Mary is given no role in the economy of salvation.

For instance, Origen would say a sinless Mary was impossible, while Ireneaus went a different direction (drawing the typological nexus between Mary and Eve). A student of Irenaeus also drew this same parallel (it’s possible that the student, whose name escapes me right now, actually came up with the typology). They both used a quote from Clement eluding to solely the virgin birth. The church wound up coming up with, on its own accord without any actual apostolic support, the idea that a sinless Mary was required for the purity of Christ (in other words it was originally a doctrine that was very Christological in nature). This idea also played a role in the doctrine of perpetual virginity (along with some alleged support from Ezekiel 44, which is exegetical leap).

Leaving aside the question of how “church” should be defined (and whether it’s fair to say the RCC is the “one true church of Christ”) all I’m saying is there was no perfect continuum of knowledge in areas that are outside of scripture. To move a step further, not long after the apostolic fathers were dead (within a matter of decades) church leaders were already debating these doctrines because they were not enumerated by either the apostles or any apostolic father.

Logically speaking the validity of RCC doctrine rides solely on its premise that it is the one true church and as such cannot err is material matter of faith and morals. The RCC has created various avenues of infallibility. Not only are Papal declarations (made within a certain format) infallible, not only are ecumenical councils infallible, but there is also Sacred and Ordinary Magisterium. In other words if a doctrine has been around for long enough it must be right.

I guess I’d like to address the idea of “the church” and the maxim that the devil will never prevail against it – but IMO the instant issue is probably more important (and frankly less speculative).

Sola… might I suggest it would be of benefit to you to go back over the responses to you from the last couple days? most if not all of your issues have been answered including Irenaeus/Origen each of whom regardless of any theory they might have had, stood firm in support of the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Majesterium

 

[PJM]

I know this is true about Christ but i’m referring to her own conception. Was a man involved in her conception?

Reply:

The Romans and 1 John verses were carefully selected, and show that your putting great effort into to querries. Thanks, and God’s continued Blessing.

What Catholics actually believe about Mary (the Mother of God) and why.

Let’s set some ground rules: For the following reasons I will quote from the “Catholic bible.” How ever please confirm for yourself in your KJV, and almost always you will find the same biblical message. Why?

Because the original bible was the Catholic bible. It is historically provable that the “only bible in use” for fifteen hundred years was the Catholic bible. It was not until the year 1611, that a fallen away catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther published the KJV, reflecting his personal views of the bible.

Second: In explaining the Catholic Faith, we use Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Common sense. Why? John 21: 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. “

Of significant note is the factual statement that Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well as some other noted leaders of the revolt against Catholicism accepted and professed the Church’s dogmas and doctrines in regards to Mary. It was later followers who dissented from the RCC’s long held truths, not the original leaders of the revolution.

Mary as Mother of God?

Clearly, God (the Holy Spirit) impregnated the “Virgin Mary”. She did give birth to a son, fathered by God, and thus has to be the “Mother of God.” Amen?

Luke Chapter 1: 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” 30* And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born (God) will be called holy, the Son of God.” … “41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (God) should come to me? Amen?

The Blessed Virgin Mary: Ever Virgin and ever Sinless.

The first point is that God and the Arch -Angel Gabriel both acknowledge that Mary, was indeed a virgin. The real questions are why was this necessary and did Mary, as Catholics profess, remain “always a virgin?”

We read above in John Gospel (means Good News) that God never intended to have everything He wished us to know written down in the bible.

In searching for biblical evidence of the truth we will go back to the book of Exodus, and learn what God demanded of Moses for the Ark of the Promised Covenant.” Ex. Chapter 25: 10-11"They shall make an ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. 11 And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it,

Again we ask a question, why God insisted on “pure gold?” The answer lies in who and what God is. God has all attributes, and “all attributes to there most full and most perfect extent.” Amen? Thus God is everything that is “good, beautiful and perfect and lovely,” and can do nothing that does not reflect His perfect attributes, to do so would mean that He wasn’t God. Amen?

So in this passage we see Yahweh God, the Great “I Am,” telling Moses exactly what He expects for His Ark BECAUSE it will contain the Covenant, and thus the spiritual presence of God Himself. God cannot be in something that is not pure! It was true then, and it’s true now.

Our next question gets directly to the issue of Mary’s “Perpetual Virginity.” Why did this HAVE to be true? Answer: God, All Perfect God, COULD Not accept anything less from the “ark / tabernacle” that would contain for nine months, give flesh to, and give birth to His Son, the very Son of God. Amen? Mary had to be Virgin, and Mary had to be free of all sin, in order to accomplish what Her Perfect God Willed to be accomplished.

Another question, did Mary “merit” this extraordinary, once in the world honor? No and yes is the answer. No, as it was through the future Merits of the sacrifice of her Son, Jesus, that She gained the necessary merit. However, it was Mary’s free will that always conformed fully, to the Will of God, Her Creator that permitted God to choose her from all women throughout All of Creation for the Singular honor. It is God who made Mary a Sinless Virgin, and it was God, who kept Mary as a Sinless Virgin, because it suited His Divine Will, and His Perfect Nature. Amen?

Mary HAD to be perfect (both Virgin and sinless) because a less than perfect person COULD NOT give birth to “The Perfect God.” For the same reason, and as a singular honor, God Willed that Mary, the Mother of the “Son of God,” remain perfect, as is God’s Will and certainly within God’s powers, no doubt in complete affirmation of the Will of Jesus as a manifestation of the love for His Mother. Amen?
PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

**Originally Posted by justasking4 **
This is an absolute. Even the “exceptions” you mentioned were not spared the sin of Adam. We know more about Elijah and he never makes any claim to being sinless. The only true exceptions would Adam and Eve who were a special creation of God and the Lord Jesus. All other men and women are conceived via normal human conception processes.

Reply:
My dear friend in Christ, were your statement true Mary would not “be the Mother of God.” And how would Jesus be “human?” And if Jesus was not human, He could not have “died for our Eternal Salvation”, right:thumbsup:

Please reread Luke Chapter 1: 26-40 It’s right there, even in the KJV.

God Bless,
PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
Nope … I’m saying the RCC defines church erroneously & misunderstands the role of Peter. First, he was more fairly viewed as the first among equals (rather than the way Rome views the Papacy).

Reply:

My friend in Christ, does your bible really say something different than mind? This what mine say’s.

Catholic Answer on Primacy of Peter

The question before us is “can there be ‘an infallible proclamation’ out side of the bible?

The short answer is yes.

The RCC teaches and has always taught (and has almost always had deserters, even in the present age), understood and put into practice that the Supreme Pontiff, whether alone or in “communion with the Magistrium” (the body of bishops world wide that are supporting the Pontiff,) may and can make an official pronouncement from the “chair of Peter” on matters of Faith and or Morals (only), intended for world wide application, and if all above conditions are met, it is understood to be an “infallible pronouncement.”

As a secondary note: All teachings are the Holy Father, relating to the RCC, are to be given assent and acceptance of faith, by all Catholics. In other words we are to accept and live his teachings.

Why is this? Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?

Because I am limited to the number of words that I can use, I will in this post only reference one bible passage, perhaps at a later time, I will post additional verses supporting the Primacy of Peter? They are quite numerous *** a “body of work.”

Matt. 16:13-19
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We have to establish two platforms for our discussion. First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to. Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?

Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!”

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.

God’s continued Blessings,

PJM

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
Nope … I’m saying

The church is the collective of all Christians. Even during the day of Paul there were many different churches. John writes about seven churches in Revelation. I’m sorry I simply think Rome uses the one true church thing for it’s own purposes & it has no basis in any apostolic doctrine or any teaching of Christ. Not a point we’re going to agree on (which is why I probably should have kept my trap shut).

Reply:
My dear frind in Christ you are confusing “church’s” (buildings and communities,) with “CHURCH” which deals with the actual faith beliefs of these “churches.”

Read carefully even in the KJV…
13* Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14* And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16* Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17* And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18* And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19* I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Do we see a pattern of singular pro-nouns? Jesus say’s “I” and “you” and “this rock” and “Church” all singular right:thumbsup:
Could God not know what He was saying? No, not possible

God’s continued blessings
PJM m.c.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Yes, that’s about the gist of it.

Ok, thanks for your honesty.

I must, respectfully, disagree here with your answer. I cannot concede that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally authoritative, inspired and inerrant sources of divine truth. My conscience simply will not allow me to concede this.

The word of God, inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs, is the only norm of doctrine. Please consider this - if the Magisterium interprets inerrant scripture, then it is not above or even EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE is it?

Please turn to Acts 17:11 and read the verses there very carefully. The Bereans are commended for examining all doctrine according to the rule of scripture alone and for judging doctrine from no other point of view than from scripture alone. As much as I respect Catholics who practise their faith - and I most surely do - it is on this foundational principle of ‘scripture alone’ that prevents me from becoming a full Catholic or converting to Roman Catholicism myself.

Think what it would do to me, hypothetically speaking, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Roman Catholicism would ask of me to accept the Magisterium’s list of dogma and theological pronouncements without question. This I could not do.

You see, in Acts 17:11 all is subordinate to scripture; the judgment of scripture is the judgment of God. This is my position.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Almost/Maybe! I’m not quite sure about #1. Inspired in the sense that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Inerrant in the sense that She cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. #2 - Definitely. #3 - Yes; when speaking on faith and morals.

Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium.

But what about Acts 17:11?

Acts 17:11 gives no support for your assertion.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I"m almost 100% sure some do.

That is true. But a Catholic that thinks the Eucharist is merely symbolic most assuredly wouldn’t understand what he is indicating by receiving the Eucharist. This is one reason why non-Catholics should not receive the Eucharist.

Should a Priest give the consecrated host to a Catholic who believes that it is symbolic?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Should a Priest give the consecrated host to a Catholic who believes that it is symbolic?

Priests aren’t mind-readers. How would they know? And besides, most Catholics who don’t believe what the Church believes can’t be bothered to show up to Mass on Sunday - so its not a problem, except for maybe Christmas and Easter.

Now, if there was knowledge of such a problem, the Priest should pastorally handle it long before it gets to the altar rail.

 

[distracted]

Or it could be that I have other things to do other than blog on CAF all day? Uhhhh …

yeah right… thats always the reason…

and i’m santa Claus…

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

This is just a friendly thought and reply to the Sola Scripture posting. Something to think about.

Taking a step or two back in “Time”. We find that the “Bible” hadn’t even been written yet.

1. Adam and Eve. (Yet clearly they had a relationship with God. True they sinned, yet even after that they and their “family” had some sort of relationship with God.) Yet they had no scrolls or Bible to base their beliefs on. So Sola Scripture doesn’t seem to work here. Also keep in mind here as you think about this God says he doesn’t change ever. So thinking that Sola Scripture is the only way to go would be wrong.
2. (Jumping forward now quite a few more years.) In the days BEFORE Jesus was born. Who had a Bible or even Scrolls? If I remember right Only the Phariese/Scribes of the day had the Scrolls in the Temples. The People/ Comman everyday man and woman only heard what was read from these scrolls on the Sabbath. Yet, they were “taught” a lot of things from Tradition from the Phariese/Scribes. Again Sola Scripture, doesn’t work.
3. Jesus himself, didn’t walk around with Scrolls of the Old Testament. Yet, everything He taught his followers was from “Oral/Traditional” Teaching. Again Sola Scripture doesn’t work. Also keep in mind many people back then couldn’t read, yet how did the teachings of Jesus get handed down over the years? Tradition and Oral teaching. True many things were “quoted” from the Old Testament, yet back when Jesus was walking the earth the New Testament hadn’t been written yet.

Today many people still can’t read, how are they taught? It would be impossible to think they could remember each and ever verse in the Bible. Yet they are taught by Oral or Traditional Teaching. Again Sola Scripture doesn’t work here.

My Step Father can’t read a word. Yet he has served in the Army, Worked, is Retired and is now even a Knights of Columbus, 4th degree. Yet he is a folower of Jesus. Again just one more example how "Sola Scripture" doesn’t work.

People that get “hung up” on Sola Scripture would do well do take a step back and look at the “History” of the Bible and how it was handed down over the years. (by oral Tradition Teaching) Even in the Bible it says that there is no way that they could have written everything Jesus said or did, because there are no books that could hold all that information. John said that.

Just something to think about…

Sola scriptura protects the divine character and authority of scripture. It is to be the only norm of doctrine in the church and the only judge in all controversy.

Even if your step Father can’t read, as you pointed out, the scriptures alone maintain their God-given integity of supreme truth. Your example of your step Father does not infract this principle in any way.

God obligates His church to settle all doctrinal controversy by scripture alone. In my view this was actually the practice of Christ and the Apostles. Please read and study these scriptures, in this connection:

Matthew 4:4; 22:29; Mark 9:12; Luke 10:26; 24:27; Acts 3:22; 7:2; 13:33; 26:22.

The word of God is the only norm of doctrine.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The word of God, inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs, is the only norm of doctrine. Please consider this - if the Magisterium interprets inerrant scripture, then it is not above or even EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE is it?

The Magisterium is not superior to Scripture, but its servant (which doesn’t imply inferiority - remember that Christ, Who is above all, came to serve).

From Dei Verbum:

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (cf. Pius XII, apostolic constitution, “Munificentissimus Deus,” Nov. 1, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) p. 756; Collected Writings of St. Cyprian, Letter 66, 8: Hartel, III, B, p. 733: “The Church [is] people united with the priest and the pastor together with his flock.”)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 3 “On Faith:” Denzinger 1792 (3011).) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (cf. Pius XII, encyclical “Humani Generis,” Aug. 12, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) pp. 568-69: Denzinger 2314 (3886).) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Please turn to Acts 17:11 and read the verses there very carefully. The Bereans are commended for examining all doctrine according to the rule of scripture alone and for judging doctrine from no other point of view than from scripture alone. As much as I respect Catholics who practise their faith - and I most surely do - it is on this foundational principle of ‘scripture alone’ that prevents me from becoming a full Catholic or converting to Roman Catholicism myself.

Think what it would do to me, hypothetically speaking, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Roman Catholicism would ask of me to accept the Magisterium’s list of dogma and theological pronouncements without question. This I could not do.

You see, in Acts 17:11 all is subordinate to scripture; the judgment of scripture is the judgment of God. This is my position.

It doesn’t say Scritpure ‘alone’. Remember they also “received the word”, which indicates the oral traditions and preaching of the Apostles.

Now as Catholics, we don’t throw away Scripture (which is a common charge), on the contrary, we give the Gospels the highest degree of veneration (have you ever witnessed the procession and incensation of the Gospel at Mass?). But we don’t give it the only position of authority. It’s not an all or nothing situation for us.

 

[JMJ_coder]

God obligates His church to settle all doctrinal controversy by scripture alone. In my view this was actually the practice of Christ and the Apostles.

Again I ask, if sola scriptura was the practice of the early Church, where is the extra-biblical evidence (since we obviously disagree on Scriptures) that they taught and practiced sola scriptura. Where are the writings of the Church Fathers or Church Councils that teach sola scriptura? Surely they must have mentioned sola scriptura in the Council that defined the Canon of Scripture - is it in their texts?

 

[guanophore]

I’m a four-year revert, not a scholar on these matters, so I’ll be happy to receive correction of Catholic posters if I’m off-base here.

I think you’re judging a statement by the pope by the standards of sola scriptura–a standard that fails both for Scripture and for Sacred Tradition.

In other words, the statement should require no further need for interpretation. Unfortunately, while the writer or speaker (the writers of the Bible or the pope) may be inspired for a particular statement, the words are read and misinterpreted by us fallen humans.

Vigorous debate can be healthy and lead to spiritual growth. However, if the Church would be led astray, the Holy Spirit acts through the successor to St. Peter and Apostles to clarify.

:clapping:

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I see. Well, I agree that they have objective meanings and organic unity , though the differences between the canon lists the Early Church Fathers came up with, as well as the differences of canon within Christianity today, show that what exactly this unity consists of is not obvious without the Magesterium. The same is true of the objective meaning of Scripture- the vast numbers of disagreements over the meanings of key doctrines between sincere believers show that while the truth in Scripture itself is objective, the lens of private interpretation and exegesis is subjective.

Agreed .

I responded to this in detail already in large portions of my last few posts that you haven’t responded to directly. So I’ll just await your reply to what I already said, if you want to make one.

I responded to this recently when replying to your post to Chesterton.

Remember how God revealed the books of the Old Testament. He gave His inerrant revelation to Israel (the type of the Church) piece by piece over a period of thousands of years. In the same way, he speaks through the councils, revealing what the Church needs to know over thousands of years.

Also, and most importantly, the Church infallibly defines principally that which is critical to salvation, to our unity with Christ. None of the issues you have mentioned are essential to an individual’s unity with Christ, wouldn’t you agree?

On matters not essential to salvation, of course there is always more to know. There are always questions God could answer but doesn’t. For instance, we know next to nothing about Melchizedek’s personal life from Scripture. If the Scripture is God’s inerrant revelation, transmitted through human authors, why didn’t they just write about Melchizedek’s life?

There’s always more we can know about matters not necessary to salvation and God chooses what He’ll reveal through His Church about these and when. But on matters pertaining to salvation, the Church does give everything people need to know. The Bible exists to unite people to God. The Church councils exist for the same reason. Not to give a big rundown about scientific, theological or philosophical issues non-essential to salvation.

The bishops of the Church comprise the Magesterium. If I’m not mistaken (and this isn’t something I’ve researched), all the Catholic bishops make up the Magesterium. There isn’t a set number of men, I don’t think (though again, this isn’t territory on which I’m fully sure of foot), because the Church can grow to encompass more territory as more people convert or the Catholic population increases, and then more bishops become needed.

Tradition is a key source. I don’t know what specific documents the Church uses, or how much of these documents it considers to be infallible.

We can see just a little of the regulation from the description of the council in Acts 15. The apostles and elders (or bishops) gather. There is much debate. Then Peter (the Pope) speaks, and with his announced position the council’s debate ends. We follow that process still. Then in the Scripture there were final words by Paul, Barnabas and James. That probably still is the case in the Church, some bishops giving final words, but I’m just guessing. I don’t know those details.

Then the decision of the Church is carried to the Church wherever its members are (with Paul and Barnabas, in the scriptural account).

On all the internal regulatory details of how the councils are managed, the Scripture isn’t specific enough. Tradition is a more detailed source on this. I don’t know how much of this regulation the Church considers to be infallible.

Hi Lief,

Thank you for your post.

I have read this with interest. You have not, of course, convinced me against the sola scriptura principle.

I do enjoy your posts. You write with clarity and thoroughness; and I have profited from what you have written on this forum. We share a lot of common ground; there are some significant differences between us too.

Please ponder this statement of mine, brother in Christ:

I do not believe in scripture because of the church but because of its own internal testimony that it is the voice of God.

This is the essence of my belief in sola scriptura.

By the way, Lief, replies to your posts 932, 933 and 937 are on their way.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[guanophore]

Because the original bible was the Catholic bible. It is historically provable that the “only bible in use” for fifteen hundred years was the Catholic bible. It was not until the year 1611, that a fallen away catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther published the KJV, reflecting his personal views of the bible.

Actually, the KJV was published by King James. Luther’s bible was published in German. Luther originally included the Deuterocanonical books, as did the KJV. Luther did want to take more books out that contradicted his theology, but his homies prevented him.

 

[ncgolf]

I do not believe in scripture because of the church but because of its own internal testimony that it is the voice of God.

I do not believe in SS so maybe that is why I do not understand this statement. What do you mean internal testimony, is that what you think or feel Scripture is telling you? Can you clarify a bit more.

Thanks.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I do not believe in scripture because of the church but because of its own internal testimony that it is the voice of God.

The Quran also makes the same claim in internal testimony that it is the voice of God (actually much more forcefully than the Bible does). So why do you not believe that book?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical; This is a Lie proven many times over. Provide evidence from the Scriptura proving that Sola Scriptura theology is absolutely biblical. Please provide the biblica verse that states such a deception.

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura, have no authority to lay claim too but every wind of doctrine invented by man himself, Sola Scripturalist brings a changing gospel in every age since it inception. The proof is in your Sola Scriptura history of faith. Research your own Sola Scriptura faith and you will find that it has changed since Martin Luther invented it. Sola Scriptura has been the worst man made doctrine to invade Christianity since the Arain heresy, only because Sola Scriptura and the free world thinkers allowed it to survive longer than any other hersey that infected the people of God, and his Catholic church.

The one who falls for the Sola Scriptura man made theology, makes themself to be a false god to protest the living God who never made sola scriptura worthy of faith. Sola Scriptura are on their own to believe as the deciever pleases them to believe, this confirms the many different protestant and non catholic christian belief’s which comes from this Sola Scriptura new invention.