Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[ron77nyc]

In other words the Reverend McBrien said nothing literally definitive as it is not his place to make public statements as to Church dogma.

One must be very careful when reading “secular” articles that “quote” people… I think that often times much of what is said mysteriously vanishes into thin air, and only what the writer wants to appear does. The article makes it seem that the Professor of Theology is going against Church teachings, and somehow I doubt that a Theology Professor at Notre Dame has much inclination to lie about Church teachings…there is more to the issue than one “soundbite” or a “quip”.

The real issue is that limbo has been done away with whether the professor said what he said or not. So was Augustine wrong ? What about parents who agonized over the loss of an unbaptized child and now find out that it was for nothing?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Jesus said that all who believe in Him have eternal life. When anyone in the bible asked “What must I do to be saved?” the answer was never “Accept Me and the authority of Peter and the Church.” This was developed much later on and I see the necessity of it under the circumstances of the that particular time in history but the original gospel message has never changed. We are saved by grace through faith.

Amen! Absolutely correct!

The early Christian preaching was a living and powerful heralding of the risen Christ who alone could save from sins.

The invitation of the gospel was to believe in Christ crucified, risen and coming again! It was never an invitation to come to an institution. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was something that developed in history; it is now a part of Christ’s universal (catholic) Church; but the RCC in and of itself was not founded by Christ.

I am grateful to God that over the centuries there have been many devout and faithful Christians in the RCC and many outstanding examples of genuine piety.

 

[ron77nyc]

Jesus and the apostles did not tell anyone about Purgatory because it was not a part of the apostolic message or plan of salvation.

The apostolic preaching was a direct command to REPENT AND FLEE FROM THE WRATH TO COME! There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. It is that simple.

The New Testament rings and reverberates with the urgency to call upon the name of the Lord before it is too late.

The ethos and spirituality of the New Testament know nothing about Purgatory and afford it no place in the divine scheme of things. Yes, sola scriptura is absolutely biblical!

I agree with you. The gospel message is very simple.
Even if I were to give the benefit of the doubt and say that there is a possibility of purgatory I don’t see how it would change anything. Who but God Himself can decide if a person is purged or when he is purged and how can we pray for someone unless we know for sure that he is in purgatory. How do we know when to stop praying. It’s not possible to know.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

"Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in Heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in Hell, because they cannot be loosed from sins. Therefore after this life, there are some not yet loosed from sins, who can be loosed there from; and the like have charity, without which sins cannot be loosed, for ‘charity covereth all sins’ [Prov. 10:12]. Hence they will not be consigned to everlasting death, since ‘he that liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die for ever’ [Jn. 11:26]: nor will they obtain glory without being cleansed, because nothing unclean shall obtain it, as stated in the last chapter of the Apocalypse (verse 14). Therefore some kind of cleansing remains after this life.
If the debt of punishment is not paid in full after the stain of sin has been washed away by contrition, nor again are venial sins always removed when mortal sins are remitted, and if justice demands that sin be set in order by due punishment, it follows that one who after contrition for his fault and after being absolved, dies before making due satisfaction, is punished after this life. Wherefore those who deny Purgatory speak against the justice of God…” catscans.com/catholicsite/purgatry.htm

“To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the ‘eternal punishment’ of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the ‘temporal punishment’ of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. [Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]”

I do not believe in Purgatory but I do not, ipso facto, speak against the justice of God.

No, I affirm and uphold the justice of God. It is at the Cross of Calvary that Christ’s finished work forever satisfied, exhaustively, the justice of God.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Who decides who is in purgatory and who is not and how long they stay there? How do we know when someone is released from purgatory?

No one decides who is in Purgatory and who is not because no such place exists.

God has furnished for us no such details and it formed no part of his Plan of salvation. Christ, the apostles, the early church and the scriptures refute the notion of Purgatory entirely.

 

[RobHom]

The real issue is that limbo has been done away with whether the professor said what he said or not. So was Augustine wrong ? What about parents who agonized over the loss of an unbaptized child and now find out that it was for nothing?

I think what one really needs to do is read the Catechism.

Now…I am about to express a completely PERSONAL opinion.

I have an extremely ardent belief in God. I know that I am one who must rely on His Mercy when I pass from this world. That being said, though the concept of Limbo was taught, and though it was not “dogma” or necessary to believe, I personally cannot believe that our God, a God who I cannot believe would fault the newborn innocent for being born should they unfortunately die before reaching an age where they can come to know Him. If our God is as merciful as we believe Him to be…it is impossible to believe that God would condemn an innocent child to damnation. To believe that He would is to believe that God is a merciless vengeful God of uncontrolled illogical wrath.

In actuality… I think I’m pretty close to the actual position of the Church.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The Church did not invent Purgatory… and if you are a member, you are required to believe what the Church teaches (dogma)… and the Bible Does teach Purg… (1 Cor 3:13… St. Mt 18:23, etc…). It just doesn’t mention the word… but the concept and reality of Purg is there… In fact, the NT is full of passages that allude to Purg. You just don’t (yet) know where they are at… Neither did i until i started studying the scirptures…

First of all, I will put your mind at ease. I am not a Catholic but, rather, a Protestant. I would have thought you would know that if you had been reading these posts in context. I have been taking the position in this thread that sola scriptura is absolutely biblical! I believe this out of powerful inward conviction. I have never been a Catholic; how could I be if I hold to sola scriptura?

Secondly, I am aware of the scriptures you put forth to demonstrate your support of a notion of Purgatory. It is just that I do not consider that they bear the interpretation you put on them.

Thirdly, although I am not a Catholic I am not hostile to Catholics but, rather, have a high regard for those genuine Catholics who practise their faith.

Fourthly, although I reject the notion of Purgatory on biblical grounds I do not believe the affirmation of the notion - in and of itself - will affect a redeemed person’s standing in the sight of God provided that person is trusting in Christ for salvation.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Christ’s work on the Cross means nothing unless a person ACCEPTS it with all one’s heart and soul … and body… St. Luke 10:17 says to give up everything to follow Christ… Have you done that?

The Bible is clear that we must be holy in order to enter Heaven…(“Be perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect”)…

Heaven… where no impure thing will enter (Rev 21:27)

Yes, I have accepted Christ’s work on the Cross with my whole being.

I do practise the Christian faith. My faith is not “just head knowledge” and it is NOT “easy believism”.

One important truth that I share deeply with true Catholics is the need to take up one’s cross and follow Christ and to live the Christian life.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Very good. The Catholic Church put a name to what you described - Purgatory. What you said is 100% Catholic!

Catholic teaching affirms that Purgatory is a place where further cleansing is necessary in order to be fit for heaven. This may, in God’s economy, take some time.

My position, is that the perfect sanctification of the redeemed spirit takes place instantaneously at death, based on the finished work of Christ. There is no hiatus in my viewpoint.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The Bible can’t testify. That is an action(verb). People testify.

So you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God because the Bible says so? If I tell you this post I’m writing right now is the inspired, inerrant word of God would you believe it? It says that it is so therefore it must be, right?

Your words, obviously, are not the inspired, inerrant word of God because the authoritative stamp of God is not behind them.

The Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God because holy men of God were moved under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to reveal the mind, character and will of God. These men retained their authentic personalities and temperaments and wrote in their own individual styles; but the end process by the CONCURSIVE action of the Holy Spirit produced the infallible result God wanted, viz: to reveal divine truth.

 

[Cinette]

Jesus and the apostles did not tell anyone about Purgatory because it was not a part of the apostolic message or plan of salvation.

The apostolic preaching was a direct command to REPENT AND FLEE FROM THE WRATH TO COME! There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. It is that simple.

The New Testament rings and reverberates with the urgency to call upon the name of the Lord before it is too late.

The ethos and spirituality of the New Testament know nothing about Purgatory and afford it no place in the divine scheme of things. Yes, sola scriptura is absolutely biblical!

Sola Scriptura is absolutely biblical? It just doesn’t make sense!

Where does it teach Sola Scriptura in the Bible? This is a self-refuting proposition. At the time of the Apostles the scripture was passed on orally. Even in the Bible it is said that not all that Jesus said was recorded. However, inspired by the H Spirit the Apostles managed to spread the good news and later the bible was compiled and approved but there was much more.

So you believe that the Bible is the sole, sufficient rule of faith? Prove it! How can you support that with chapter and verse from the Bible? Give me implicit or explicit passages where this can be substantiated please.

Now it is your turn to answer a question.

 

[guanophore]

Where did Jesus or His apostles ever teach such a thing? Chapter and verse please.

Why is there no salvation outside the Church?

Jesus all must come to Him to be saved.

There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

Jesus identifies Himself completely with his Holy Bride and His Body, the Church. (The two have become one)

Jesus gave “all authority” to the Church, and fully intended that His message would be brought to the world by the Church.

What makes you think there is salvation in any other name?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Sola Scriptura is absolutely biblical? It just doesn’t make sense!

Where does it teach Sola Scriptura in the Bible? This is a self-refuting proposition. At the time of the Apostles the scripture was passed on orally. Even in the Bible it is said that not all that Jesus said was recorded. However, inspired by the H Spirit the Apostles managed to spread the good news and later the bible was compiled and approved but there was much more.

So you believe that the Bible is the sole, sufficient rule of faith? Prove it! How can you support that with chapter and verse from the Bible? Give me implicit or explicit passages where this can be substantiated please.

Now it is your turn to answer a question.

I could, of course, ask you to show me where is the proof for a Petrine primacy, a teaching magisterium and a papal infallibility, and so on. It becomes a circular argument.

I have no axe to grind with you as such and I respect your spirituality.

However, I do believe in sola scriptura - meaning that scripture is the ultimate and final arbiter in determining matters of doctrine, ethics and faith. I am, therefore, happy to respond to your questions.

I believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs; that they declare divine truth without any error; and that they are the supreme standard and benchmark by which all confessions, creeds, philosophies and human opinions should be measured.

There are many scriptures that support this position. I will not give you a “blow by blow” exhaustive listing of all these scriptures. You will be able to find them in any good concordance.

Some representative scriptures, then, that support sola scriptura:

2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; John 10:35; Luke 16:29-31; Psalm 119:11; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19; 1 Peter 4:11; Psalm 119:59-60 among many others.

The important thing is that the scriptures were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4); that they are able to make us wise unto salvation and thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:15-17); that scripture did not come in old time by the will of humans but they holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

John 10:35 declares, furthermore, that the scripture cannot be broken.

 

[Cinette]

I could, of course, ask you to show me where is the proof for a Petrine primacy, a teaching magisterium and a papal infallibility, and so on. It becomes a circular argument.

I have no axe to grind with you as such and I respect your spirituality.

However, I do believe in sola scriptura - meaning that scripture is the ultimate and final arbiter in determining matters of doctrine, ethics and faith. I am, therefore, happy to respond to your questions.

I believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs; that they declare divine truth without any error; and that they are the supreme standard and benchmark by which all confessions, creeds, philosophies and human opinions should be measured.

There are many scriptures that support this position. I will not give you a “blow by blow” exhaustive listing of all these scriptures. You will be able to find them in any good concordance.

Some representative scriptures, then, that support sola scriptura:

2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; John 10:35; Luke 16:29-31; Psalm 119:11; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19; 1 Peter 4:11; Psalm 119:59-60 among many others.

The important thing is that the scriptures were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4); that they are able to make us wise unto salvation and thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:15-17); that scripture did not come in old time by the will of humans but they holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

John 10:35 declares, furthermore, that the scripture cannot be broken.

Thank you for taking the trouble to come back to me with passages and verses from the Bible as your “proof”. I appreciate this. I myself am very amateur in my Faith but I try to learn as much as possible. However something I only read recently is this about st Peter’s warning about those who are “ignorant” of how to correctly interpret the Bible:

“There are some things in them (ie the writings of St Paul) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)

So I urge you, as I myself will do, to study this topic prayerfully and carefully. I am sure if we do that we will both gain something valuable.

It is morning here and I have a lot of things to do but I will come back with a carefully prepared answer later today.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

FOR CRAIG KENNEDY

2 Tim 3:16-17: Does not say that the Bible is all we need for salvation. Although it is profitable for four ends, this text does not say that Scripture is SUFFICIENT. It merely says that the whole of the bible is indeed INSPIRD, WICH WE Catholics accept with our heart since the Canon of Scripture was discerned by our Church under Pope St Damasus (the 37th Pope after Peter) and at Councils at Rome, Hoppo and Carthage (4th c) and the unchanged list of books confirmed at Trent (16thc) and Vatican 1 (19th c) and Vatican II (1962-65) . The text does not say that ONLY the Bible is inspired.

ALL SCRIPTURE DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS ONLY SCRIPTURE. I think that it would be advisable if you consulted a competent Scripture scholar to help you understand the true meaning of this text. Also, the word USEFUL (in that text) does not mean SUFFICIENT (for salvation). There are two little books by Patrick Matrid that explain Sola Scriptura very well – Where is that in the Bible?” and “Answer me this!”.

2 Peter 1:21 Peter is merely affirming again that the bible (including prophecy) is indeed inspired and that men, moved by the Holy spirit, spoke from God. This text has nothing to do with sola scriptura: the erroneous protestant idea that only the Bible is inspired. Look at verse 20 by the way, which clearly says that “no prophecy of scripture is matter of one’s own interpretation”, as you believe. This is a proof of the necessity of an authentic teaching authority – the Church’s Magisterium, as the Jews also had – The Chair of Moses – according to Jesus (Mtt 23:2-3)

John 10:35 Here, where Jesus adds in parenthesis “and scripture cannot be broken”. He is merely confirming to the Jews who were arguing with Him, the truth, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture where it states in the Law of the OT: “I said you are gods”, when the Jews wanted to stone Him. This scripture certainly is not a proof for sola scriptura. Read it in context to see what it really means! This is another example on your part of the people referred to in 2 Peter 3:16.

Luke 16:29-31 : In stating: “They have Moses and the prophets” is no confirmation of the false idea of sola scriptura. Abraham of course would refer them to the Hebrew Testament (OT) to read of eternal like and punishment for the wicked. But the OT was not the only source of revelation for the Jews. They did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They also had their Oral Word (the Talmud), in addition to the Written Word. And they had a Teaching Authority (Magisterium) called the Seat of Moses – see Matt 23:2-3.

Psalms 119-111 “I have laid up thy Word in my heart”, does not necessarily mean the Psalmist kept in his heart the Word he had read in the Bible. Often the Word of God does not refer to the written Word; it can refer to inspiration and oral preaching. In Isaiah 55:10-11 it refers to the oral Word: “so shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth…” In Luke 3:2-3 we are told that the Word of God came to John in the wilderness. It means he was inspired. It certainly does not mean that “he opened his Bible” there in the sand dunes, to be inspired. It means God inspired him, interiorly. The next has nothing, in any case, to do with sola scriptura. See also Acts 4:31, Hebrews 11:3 etc.

1 Pet 1:10-12: The text speaks of “those things which have been announced to you by those who preached would be an example of the oral Word being proclaimed. The Jews had the OT (the written Word) and the Talmud (the Oral Word – Unwritten Tradition)

Prov 30:5-6: “Every word of God proves true”. The word, here, referred to, could be either written (the OT) or oral (in the Talmud). Indeed, we must “not add to his words (v 6). The truths of Catholic Christianity have been “passed over” (paradosis) from Christ, to the Apostles to the Bishops and down the ages, untainted in all their fullness. This is called Sacred Tradition, of which part was eventually committed to writing and certain writings, discerned by the Church to be inspired and inserted in the book we call the Bible along with the OT. This includes ALL the Books of the Septuagint which was the Greek OT translation used by the early Church. Books and parts of Books were removed from the full OT at the Reformation without authority. The Catholic Church has not ADDED books to the Canon: Protestants have removed certain books (styled “Deauterocanonical”).

 

[Cinette]

…CONTINUED

Rev 22:18-19 : When John speaks of “adding” or “taking away”, he is referring only to the Book of Revelation. The Catholic Church has done neither. But Protestants have removed (taken away) 7 books and parts of Books of the OT. Interestingly, at Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 contained all the Books of the Catholic (Septuagint/Greek) OT in HEWBREW.

1 Peter 4:11 : “Whoever speaks” : Again this refers to the oral (spoken) Word, disproving sola scriptura.

Psalm 119:59-60 “Testimonies” here could mean either the written OT or the Oral Talmud. It is no proof of sola scriptura in Judaism.

Romans 15:4 : The text only says that what was written in former days, was written for our instruction and encouragement – to which we shout “Amen” – but it does not say that what was written is “sufficient” for us for salvation. It is no proof of sola scriptura. When Paul’s Letter to the Romans was written in 57-58 AD, not all of the NT had yet been written. The “written” referred to by Paul is the OT.

2 Tim 3:15-17 : This was written in 75AD. Not all of the NT had yet been written, and the Bible was only discerned and put in one Book near the end of the 4th century. The writings Timothy was “acquainted with” was the OT! To say they are able to instruct us for salvation is not the same as saying the Scripture is ALL we need, or sufficient for salvation Verse 16: “ALL Scripture is inspired” is not the same as saying ONLY Scripture is inspired! ALL and ONLY do not mean the same thing; the text merely says that the whole of the Bible is indeed inspired, but it does not mean that ONLY the Bible is inspired! It allows for other inspired truths, not written.

I would also recommend you get “Where is that in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid. As I have said this book and the other recommended above are nice pocket sized books. There is also “Where is that in Tradition? Pope Fiction” They are all well researched and extremely readable.

Craig, kindly read this and comment - unlike some posters who are only bent on arguing and go round in circles and there is never any progress.

 

[ron77nyc]

I think what one really needs to do is read the Catechism.

Now…I am about to express a completely PERSONAL opinion.

I have an extremely ardent belief in God. I know that I am one who must rely on His Mercy when I pass from this world. That being said, though the concept of Limbo was taught, and though it was not “dogma” or necessary to believe, I personally cannot believe that our God, a God who I cannot believe would fault the newborn innocent for being born should they unfortunately die before reaching an age where they can come to know Him. If our God is as merciful as we believe Him to be…it is impossible to believe that God would condemn an innocent child to damnation. To believe that He would is to believe that God is a merciless vengeful God of uncontrolled illogical wrath.

In actuality… I think I’m pretty close to the actual position of the Church.

You are in agreement with the current position of the Church but not the historical position the Church has taken on limbo which is this:
The Council of Florence (1438-1445) repeated the doctrine of Carthage that infants who die without baptism have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil. Florence defined that all who die outside of the Church are cast into the fire and that there is no exception whatsoever. This includes unbaptized infants because they are outside of the Church.

The teaching of the Catechism of Trent

It is notable that the Church’s official catechism for 400 years (Catechism of Trent, 1566) prior to the publication of the recent one, taught that unbaptized infants suffer “eternal misery and destruction”, rejecting the happy and restful state claimed by Scholastics like Aquinas. It does not specify the sufferings however.

 

[Lampo]

Done what?

Geesh! Have you done what you said here?:

there are a number of ways to approach this. One is we could test the Koran for its accuracy on geography. This is a simple test. Secondly and most importantly we could compare it with a source that you and i would agree is inspired-inerrant i.e. the Scriptures. If the Koran contradicts the Scriptures it would be false on that account. I know Musilims won’t accept this outright. They believe the Bible has been corrupted but when you ask them for the eivdence for this claim they have none.
Thirdly, we could do a comparison with Jesus and Muhammad and see the major differences.

 

[Lampo]

Here is a professor of theology saying we are born into grace and not original sin. How do you explain this?

It was a professor of theology who said it. Not the Church. That’s how I explain it.

 

[Lampo]

Yes, the topic is sola scriptura is absolutely biblical - and I am taking the affirmative position!

Was it Biblical for the early Christians in the year 107AD?

It is absolutely biblical because the scriptures claim themselves to reveal God’s unerring will and mind.

Please provide chapter and verse for what you claim here.