Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[JMJ_coder]

If i’m not mistaken not even the professional catholic apologist here such as Tim Staples or Jimmy Atkin would make the claim these cults are true Protestants.

I’m not necessarily making that claim. What I am saying, is that if they are Christian (and that is where the debate would be) then they are Protestants, members of a non-apostolic ecclesial community.

But, the debate is whether they are Christian or not - I can see arguments on both sides; and I don’t really want to get into that argument here. But, there are other Protestants who deny these things. Father Groeschel recounts how one Sunday morning he witnessed a sunrise service where the Protestant preacher (from a mainstream group - but I can’t recall which one) denied the Resurrection.

Since Protestants are basically a church and a pope unto themselves, no two believe exactly the same things. And and warped heresy of sola scriptura is a main contributing factor to that.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

That’s how the Church has traditionally defined it too. The Church does absolutely assert that the Scripture is free from all error.

Unfortunately (IMO), the council Vatican II, a pastoral council simply assembled to advise Catholics, not an infallible council and one that explicitly stated it did not pass any new dogma, made a couple ambiguous statements about scriptural interpretation that opened the doors to Catholics to interpret the Scripture in a way that reinterpreted “errors.” One of the ambiguous statements was something like, “God has revealed without any error that truth which, for the sake of our salvation, he intended to reveal.” One possible interpretation of this statement would be that the truth revealed in the Bible for the sake of salvation is free of error, but other things in the Bible can contain error. That’s one possible interpretation of this sentence by the non-infallible council.

I personally, and many, many other Catholics, hold to the Bible’s complete inerrancy. Unfortunately, many Catholics now disagree, because of the ambiguous statements of Vatican II, and the Church has not offered any infallible statement to end the controversy.

Vatican II is a serious source of controversy among Catholics. Just about the whole controversy is focused on Church practices, though, not faith or morals. There is certainly no debate going on as a result of Vatican II over any previously defined dogma. Just about the whole thing is over Church practices. The one possible exception being scriptural inerrancy- I’m not sure if Catholics would call that a matter of “faith”- it doesn’t appear to be a matter of morals. It probably would be considered a matter of faith, and if the controversy broadens, the Church may have to settle the matter with a clear definition of the meaning of the inerrancy it has affirmed from the very beginning of its history.

It’s a very irritating controversy to me personally. I have mixed feelings about Vatican II. But I’m glad that our “big debate” is really focused so much on Church practice and discipline, rather than on doctrine. Scriptural inerrancy is the only deviation from that, as far as I can make out.

Though there are, of course, Catholics who fail to hold to the Church’s teachings faithfully, or who reject them outright, thus falling into heresy or apostasy. That’s a big issue for all Christians to deal with everywhere.

Thanks Lief for a most satisfying answer which does full justice to the question I posed.

I am most happy and relieved to hear you assert:

“The Church does absolutely assert that the Scripture is free from all error.”

I, myself, as a Protestant hold strongly to full biblical inerrancy and I share this viewpoint with traditional and conservative Catholics.

I have appreciated your devout writing style and your grasp of the issues. May God bless you!

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I am so grateful that Lief has described in cogent fashion the traditional and conservative Catholic view on biblical inerrancy.

I share this viewpoint, along with many other closely related facets of truth, with Lief and all the Catholic faithful. May God bless you!

However, if biblical inerrancy is upheld by the Catholic Church it is my understanding that you do not postulate that it is the supreme standard of divine revelation. This is where I would differ with you. It seems to me that the divinely revealed and inspired scriptures assert that they are the supreme standard in determining truth.

If you assert that scripture, tradition and reason are equal standards of authority on what authority do you make this claim?

Who gets to decide which “category” of authority wins out in theological controversies?

 

[Gara3987]

Unitarians, JWs, and Mormons are not Protestants. The are cults.

      Protestant is really someone (group) that is protesting against the Church Christ founded, That would be the Roman Catholic Church.  Anyone who is not in unison with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is considered a Protestant.  They maybe cults which is true, though they are protesting just as you are against the Church of Christ, so I guess that would truly make them a Protestant (a Protester against the Church) as well.

A question I have, what came before Scriptures? and when was the First Book written?

The answer to the first question is Tradition. The Scriptures are actually a Tradition, so from the way you have been answering, you are saying that once the bible (Holy Scriptures) was formed Tradition became meaningless and less important. When it should be Tradition and the Scriptures go hand in hand, without the active tradition and transmission we would not have the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Since Protestants are so guided by the Holy Spirit that they can’t agree upon anything, why don’t you give us at least your definition of sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura simply means that the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant scriptures - properly interpreted in their historical and theological context - are the supreme standard of authority in determining doctrine and truth.

This position does not overlook the fact that God can reveal truth through tradition and reason; it only insists that scripture remains the supreme and final arbiter in resolving theological disputes.

In all my posts I always express myself in my own words and this definition, of course, is entirely my own. It resonates, then, out of my own God-given personality and style and reflects a deep theological conviction. It is this deep conviction that makes me a Protestant.

 

[mcs7474]

Sola scriptura simply means that the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant scriptures - properly interpreted in their historical and theological context - are the supreme standard of authority in determining doctrine and truth.

This position does not overlook the fact that God can reveal truth through tradition and reason; it only insists that scripture remains the supreme and final arbiter in resolving theological disputes.

In all my posts I always express myself in my own words and this definition, of course, is entirely my own. It resonates, then, out of my own God-given personality and style and reflects a deep theological conviction. It is this deep conviction that makes me a Protestant.

Sola Scriptura = scripture alone. Its in the name man, it’s that easy.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Protestant is really someone (group) that is protesting against the Church Christ founded, That would be the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who is not in unison with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is considered a Protestant. They maybe cults which is true, though they are protesting just as you are against the Church of Christ, so I guess that would truly make them a Protestant (a Protester against the Church) as well.

A question I have, what came before Scriptures? and when was the First Book written?

The answer to the first question is Tradition. The Scriptures are actually a Tradition, so from the way you have been answering, you are saying that once the bible (Holy Scriptures) was formed Tradition became meaningless and less important. When it should be Tradition and the Scriptures go hand in hand, without the active tradition and transmission we would not have the Holy Scriptures.

As a biblical inerrantist, I believe the divinely inspired and infallible scriptures reflect an active apostolic tradition which God used in forming doctrinal truths and propositions.

Scripture, however, stands over all tradition as the final and authoritative declaration of truth which reflects the divine mind.

Scripture ‘alone’ in this sense is the supreme and final arbiter of truth and never shares this with ‘tradition.’

 

[Cinette]

I have just come upon this thread and need to clarify something from our separated brothers and sisters - I would very much appreciate to understand something at the outset:

1. Which came first: the Bible or the Catholic Church?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Sola Scriptura = scripture alone. Its in the name man, it’s that easy.

Sola scriptura arose in a certain theological and historical context.

The definition that I have given of scripture alone accords with this sensible historical understanding and it is one, I am sure, that all mainstream Protestants would concur with.

Mainstream Protestants, like myself, would allow a certain authority in tradition and reason under God. We would not, however, allow an “equal” authority of scripture, tradition and reason. Scripture ‘alone’ means that the scriptures are the final judge in all doctrinal matters and the supreme fountain from which doctrinal propositions may be welled.

The root and core meaning of a theological concept always has to be explained in a certain context and the clear meaning explicated from that context. I have “unpacked” the precise meaning of the term in my definition.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I have just come upon this thread and need to clarify something from our separated brothers and sisters - I would very much appreciate to understand something at the outset:

1. Which came first: the Bible or the Catholic Church?

I will answer your question respectfully and truthfully.

I believe that true Catholics and true Protestants, who practise their faith are part of Christ’s universal (catholic) church. The Roman Catholic Church is part of this universal church which Christ founded. It is not, however, the one true church that Christ founded.

There is no evidence in the New Teatament that the Church that Christ founded was to be an institutional organisation. There is evidence, though, that points to the truth that sinners enter the spiritual organism of the universal (catholic) church through repentance and faith.

I rejoice that there are Catholics and Protestants in the one true universal (catholic) church that Christ founded; the church militant (on earth) and the church triumphant (in heaven).

This is the biblical view of the Church.

The Church was birthed in its fullness by the pouring out of the spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is only a part of the universal Church of Christ.

The Church was founded on the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. It is entered by spiritual regeneration and new birth.

The Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Christ, then. The RCC developed historically as an institution. In the RCC as an institution there have always been true believers, as well as much apostasy and nominalism. The same applies to the Protestant Churches.

The Bible attests to a living apostolic faith that preceded the birth of the Church on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[historyb]

I have just come upon this thread and need to clarify something from our separated brothers and sisters - I would very much appreciate to understand something at the outset:

1. Which came first: the Bible or the Catholic Church?

Bible

 

[Cinette]

Bible

I am surprised at your response but it was not entirely unexpected because that is what Protestants claim and it never ceases to amaze me! So in your opinion who was responsible for the Bible?

Jesus delivered all the truths to the Apostles to pass on by word of mouth and by preaching.

Nowhere did he give any instructions for the truth to be committed to writing. St Paul is clear “Hold on to all the traditions that have been delivered to you either buy word of mouth or what is written.”

Loose manuscripts started to circulate in the early Church written by the Apostles and others.

Eventually by the end of the 4th Century the CC (started at Pentecost), under the Pope decided to discern which of these were inspired. They were placed in what we call the Bible together with the OT at Councils held at Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th century.

The CC had been going for 4 centuries before the Bible was compiled. Besides very few people could read and printing was invented towards the end in the 15th century.

There are many other Christian truths not written down in the Bible.

 

[historyb]

I am surprised at your response but it was not entirely unexpected because that is what Protestants claim and it never ceases to amaze me! So in your opinion who was responsible for the Bible?

Jesus delivered all the truths to the Apostles to pass on by word of mouth and by preaching.

Nowhere did he give any instructions for the truth to be committed to writing. St Paul is clear “Hold on to all the traditions that have been delivered to you either buy word of mouth or what is written.”

Loose manuscripts started to circulate in the early Church written by the Apostles and others.

Eventually by the end of the 4th Century the CC (started at Pentecost), under the Pope decided to discern which of these were inspired. They were placed in what we call the Bible together with the OT at Councils held at Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th century.

The CC had been going for 4 centuries before the Bible was compiled. Besides very few people could read and printing was invented towards the end in the 15th century.

There are many other Christian truths not written down in the Bible.

I expected this answer back. God was responsible for the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and the RCC was not responsible for any part of the OT or NT. The OT was together long before an RCC and the NT was around a long time before the RCC became official. No pope decided what would be in Scripture, God did.

 

[Fisher]

What Scriptures? At the time of the writing of the Gospel of John, the only Scriptures are what is now the Old Testament. The New Testament isn’t codified by the Catholic Church until the end of the Fourth Century. The Catholic Church came first, then the Bible. The Catholic Church put together the Bible.

Psa 138:2 **for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. **

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

The devil always wants us to question Gods word.

God speaks to us through His word.The devil speaks to us through this world and the philosophies of this world.

4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Feelings are not always truth or facts we must use the truth of God’s word not the lies of the devil. Commands are not feelings.

2Cor4:004 In whom the (god of this world) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2Tim 004:001 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[Cinette]

I expected this answer back. God was responsible for the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and the RCC was not responsible for any part of the OT or NT. The OT was together long before an RCC and the NT was around a long time before the RCC became official. No pope decided what would be in Scripture, God did.

God indeed in responsible for the Bible but surely you accept that he used human beings inspired by the Spirit to write it? Do you believe that God himself wrote the Bible?!!! and that he dropped it all beautifully printed from heaven?

God wants to spread the Gospel but he uses us as his instruments. The OT does indeed comes from the Jews.- ALL of it! Yet some folk have removed 7 books from the OT canon - by what authority? The Church founded by Jesus Christ - the RCC - clearly had as its first leader Peter (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, Jn 21:15-19) You seem to believe that the catholic church to which you believe you belong is not the Church of which Peter was appointed as the first Pastor. But it is in the Bible!

We have a list of all Peter’s successors (the Vicar of Christ): Linus, Anacletus, Clement 1 (in 96 AD) Evaristus and so on throughout the centuries, 265 of them up to our present Pope Benedict XVI in unbroken succession. You cannot deny history.

Do you deny that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, held under Pope Damasus I (the 37th Pope)officially authenticated the books of scripture under the inspiration of the Spirit?

 

[Cinette]

I will answer your question respectfully and truthfully.Yes, thank you - I appreciate your attitude.

I believe that true Catholics and true Protestants, who practise their faith are part of Christ’s universal (catholic) church. You are quite right here - we believe that the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church and that through baptism you are indeed part of it.The Roman Catholic Church is part of this universal church which Christ founded. It is not, however, the one true church that Christ founded.What of the scriptures of Matt 16, Luke 222 and John 21 where Peter is clearly appointed as the supreme Pastor of Jesus’ Church

There is no evidence in the New Teatament that the Church that Christ founded was to be an institutional organisation. Wrong! Already in 1 Tim 3:1 and 5:17 we read of the appointments of bishops presbyter/priests and deacons. Also the 2nd Century writing of the Didache goes into great detail on how these leaders of the institution of the Church should be appointed as successors of the Apostles and their powers passed on down the agesThere is evidence, though, that points to the truth that sinners enter the spiritual organism of the universal (catholic) church through repentance and faith.and baptism, which cleanses us from original sin.

I rejoice that there are Catholics and Protestants in the one true universal (catholic) church that Christ founded; the church militant (on earth) and the church triumphant (in heaven). I also rejoice because Jesus gave us warning of this in his parables of the wheat and the tares and the 167 fish caught in the net. Peter denied him 3 times and then repented showing that down history not all the Pope will be perfect. Even Judas whom he recruited and trained.

This is the biblical view of the Church.

The Church was birthed in its fullness by the pouring out of the spirit on the Day of Pentecost.Indeed and Peter the 1st Pope at that outpouring preached on how to repent, be baptised and be saved. This Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is only a part of the universal Church of Christ.If you are baptised in the name of the Trinity then you are indeed part of the universal church.

The Church was founded on the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. It is entered by spiritual regeneration and new birth.

The Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Christ, then. The RCC developed historically as an institution. In the RCC as an institution there have always been true believers, as well as much apostasy and nominalism. The same applies to the Protestant Churches.

The Bible attests to a living apostolic faith that preceded the birth of the Church on the Day of Pentecost.

“One cannot have salvation except in the Catholic Church headed by Peter” St Augustine (354-430)

 

[Cinette]

Oops!

CONTINUED…

The Church was founded on the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. It is entered by spiritual regeneration and new birth.Indeed!

The Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Christ, thenWrong!!! Jesus tells us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth 1 Tim 3:15. Which Church? Obviously the one with Peter and his successors as the chief Pastors Matt 16:18-19 . The RCC developed historically as an institution.Historically it began at Pentecost and was referred by St Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of St John) as (Roman Catholic) In the RCC as an institution there have always been true believers, as well as much apostasy and nominalism. The same applies to the Protestant Churches.

The Bible attests to a living apostolic faith that preceded the birth of the Church on the Day of Pentecost.Some of the Apostolic Fathers see the Church the as commencing when Longinus pierced the side of Christ on Calvary.

 

[Lampo]

I expected this answer back.

At least you are aware of the history then.

God was responsible for the Bible from Genesis to Revelation…

Yes. Working through the Church He established. The ONLY Christian Church at the time - named the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch when writing to the Smyrneans.

and the RCC…

Just so you know, when you say Roman, you are referring to only one rite (Latin) of the universal Catholic Church.

was not responsible for any part of the OT or NT.

Well, if you do not consider the Catholic Councils (Rome, Hippo, Carthage) that were called together to determine the Canon of Scripture as being responsible, then you are just ignoring history.

The OT was together long before an RCC…

Yes it was. There were two canons at the time also. 1.) Alexandrian(Septuagint); 2)Palestinian. The former included the Deuterocanonicals and the ladder did not. Jesus and His disciples used the former. That is why the Catholic Church included the Deuterocanonicals.

and the NT was around a long time before the RCC became official.

You are off here. The Bible didn’t come into existence as we have it today until around the year 382AD. Obviously, the Church, the ONLY Christian Church at the time, the Catholic Church, existed long before the Bible as we have it today. Jesus established His Church on Calvary. Pentecost was basically the coming out party of His Church. Again, St. Igantius of Antioch named this Church in the year 107AD - the name he gave it was Catholic and it stuck.

No pope decided what would be in Scripture, God did.

Not a Pope by himself, no. Yes God decided what would be in Scripture by working through the Church He established.

 

[justasking4]

I have just come upon this thread and need to clarify something from our separated brothers and sisters - I would very much appreciate to understand something at the outset:

1. Which came first: the Bible or the Catholic Church?

The Bible. The OT predates the church as do the oral teachings of Christ.

 

[Lampo]

The Bible. The OT predates the church as do the oral teachings of Christ.

So when you hear someone say “Bible”, you think only of the Old Testament?