Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[Craig_Kennedy]

What is it with posters of this sort?. They start a thread which they know the Catholics out there would jump on, then they don’t post anything after that.

Is it because they found out after a few replies that their position is indefensible or is there a more uncharitable intention.

This happened on another thread started by vichlopet. After a few posts you never hear from her again.

Anyway here’s my twobits which I posted earlier on another thread:

The two pillars of Protestantism (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) are mutually exclusive. If you believe Sola Scriptura you cannot believe Sola Fide, and if you believe Sola Fide then Sola Scriptura bites the dust.

And heres why: Sola Fide cannot be supported by Sola Scriptura because there are a lot of passages that say otherwise. This is why Luther** needed **to get rid of the book of James. Because with it (and other passages as well) this tenet will not hold water.

So what do protestants do? They get fixated on a few phrases that will support Sola Fide.

And when confronted with the other verses (e.g. James and Matthew 25:31-44) they either dismiss it or come up with ridiculous explanations.

The Bible Alone would probably have beeen okay but what it really means is “SOME PARTS OF THE BIBLE ALONE THAT WILL SUPPORT FAITH ALONE.”

So far no one has come up with a reasonable answer to this question: With the multitude of protestant denominations out there, with differrent interpretations of the Bible,who among them is right?

Take one simple issue: Infant Baptism. There are those who belive it should be done, others don’t believe so. And both camps hold their positions as doctrine. Since they can’t both be right, which one has been backed by the Holy Spirit when it came up with it’s conclusion?

And the list goes on.

I asked a Protestant friend this and all he did was become angry and call me stupid. But no answer.

So BibleOnly, what do you say? I doubt you’ll reply. I think you only started this thread for mischierf.

Well, I’m a Protestant but I respect devout Catholics.

I do not see that sola scriptura and sola fide are mutually exclusive at all.

As I hold it, sola scriptura maintains that there is a final, inerrant and OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF GOD’S TRUTH! It is the inscripturated word of God that declares God’s will and mind. It is the supreme arbiter of truth; the benchmark in determining truth from error.

Catholics join me in affirming the inerrancy of scripture, but do not join me in affirming the scriptures as the supreme arbiter of truth.
I ask you, genuinely, where is the supreme judgment over the theories and philosophies of humans to be found?

As I hold it, furthermore, sola fide simply means that faith receives the gift of salvation freely offered to all humans in Christ. Sola fide simply means that salvation cannot be PROCURED by any other means than faith alone. We are, majestically, justified by faith alone; good works, though, are the visible manifestation of salvation procured by grace.

In this context, faith without works is dead!

Sola scriptura and sola fide are not mutually exclusive; rather they are the express and authoritative teachings of scripture, that fit perfectly hand in glove.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I ask you, genuinely, where is the supreme judgment over the theories and philosophies of humans to be found?

God, Who is ultimately the supreme judge, has given authority in this matter to the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the authentic and authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR CRAIG KENNEDY

First of all, I want to say I am impressed with the effort and thought you have put into your reply. I share with you a desire to know the truth and to be faithful to Christ.

I am not interested in “winning debates” or “scoring points”. I am only interested in being true to God, as I know you are too. Absolutely. We have to pursue the truth at all cost and pride must not come into it as pride is the root of all sin. We believe only in Jesus and our Faith which is a pearl of great price.

As I read your post, I think you are saying you agree with me that the scriptures are, indeed, inerrant and without error in the original manuscripts. Is this correct?

We Catholics believe, as you do, that the scriptures are inerrant and contain everything accurately that God intended to convey to us thru them (don’t forget the HS is there to ensure that the Sacred Books are inspired). The CC accepts all authorized translations made by teams of reputable scripture scholars of all the historic denominations (Protestant and Catholic communities). We believe that God will ensure that we will not be misled. That is why in former centuries if u read history u will notice that the Church was very strict in deciding which translations we should use. This was partially responsible for the lie being spread that Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible. Our God-given infallible teaching authority (Matt 16:18-19) precludes us from falling into error which seems to be your fear.

If that is correct, then in essence you are postulating that Sacred Tradition, too, is inerrant and without error. Is this correct? Without a doubt! Yes – the CC has always taught this. All the truths delivered to us by Christ are inerrant, inspired, Sacred Tradition, part of which is the Bible, the written word.

If that is correct, then it follows, of necessity, that the Holy Spirit also infallibly worked in other areas other than scripture to produce an inerrant result. Alleluia! Amen! I ask, in all sincerity, where is the evidence of this; The evidence of this is contained in the documents of the 21 great general Councils of the Church, starting from Jerusalem in 49 AD (Acts 15) right up to Vatican II (1962-65), as well as in all the teachings and encyclicals of our 265 Popes down the ages where is the proof of this Cinette?

Thank you for your graciousness

Cheers
Cinette

Are you claiming Vatican 2 (1962-65) as an authoritative, authorised Council of the Church which guided by the Holy Spirit made inerrant pronouncements on dogma and truth?

There are many Catholics who reject the authenticity of Vatican 2.How do you account for this? How do explain this, in the light of the position you are adopting on these issues?

 

[SIA]

God, Who is ultimately the supreme judge, has given authority in this matter to the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the authentic and authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Hmm. You have a much different understanding of how God operates than I do. I thought his holy Word spoke for itself. Where does the magisterium obtain its authority equal with Scripture?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hmm. You have a much different understanding of how God operates than I do. I thought his holy Word spoke for itself. Where does the magisterium obtain its authority equal with Scripture?

If Scripture interpreted itself, then why would there be so many Protestants with wildly different interpretations over seemingly straightforward and obvious doctrines?

The authority was granted by Jesus Himself.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

If I may offer some comments here, please consider these:

• Concerning the Scriptures:

I believe that there can be two approaches to accepting that the scriptures are, indeed, inerrant and without error in the original manuscripts either: hard evidence/rigorous assessment or faith. The former is useful for agnostics and athiests.

• Lee Strobel’s book “The case for the real Jesus” adopts the former approach (as that was his route to believing) - he used several respected, independent biblical historians who he interviewed. They explained that some of the differences between the biblical copies did exist, but did not change the message - they were in effect conveying the intended message. He arrived at the conclusion that Biblical Scripture is indeed inerrant - this is in spite of Bible critics’ claims that there were errors that crept in during the transcription process over the last 2000 years. They also claim that the Bible is the most researched and assessed book and has withstood the centuries of examination! There are many sources of corroboration of events of Jesus’ life, including historians such as Josephus, the Talmud, etc.
• I shall not dwell on the faith-based acceptance of the Bible as I think I would be preaching to the converted!
• Concerning tradition:

Patrick Madrid’s book “Pope Fiction” addresses many aspects of myths concerning the papacy. Of concern here, is infallibility which results in heretical teaching or doctrine. Madrid clarifies what infallibility is and what it is not. He also presents examples where some popes did move close to errors in teaching and were prevented from doing so, sometimes in dramatic fashion.

The key issue is that truth comes from God through the holy Spirit. I believe although in Madrid’s case he acknowledges so, the “The case for the real Jesus” implies it.

Thank you for your post and I have read it carefully.

Please answer this question for me:

Where does a person go to hear divine truth without error? Who and where is the supreme arbiter of truth?

 

[SIA]

If Scripture interpreted itself, then why would there be so many Protestants with wildly different interpretations over seemingly straightforward and obvious doctrines?

The authority was granted by Jesus Himself.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM

There isn’t as many as you would have others believe there are and there are probably just as many different beliefs amongst individual Catholics. In fact, I know there are. I was Catholic for over three decades.

 

[Kscrawler]

“Catholics join me in affirming the inerrancy of scripture, but do not join me in affirming the scriptures as the supreme arbiter of truth.”

I appreciate your objectivity. Who is the abrbiter when there is so much disagreement among Christians about what Scripture means? In the town where I live there are 6 Baptist Churches, two Lutheran, two Methodist and a few others. None of them agree, yet all of them say that follow sola scriptura and scripture alone is the sole arbiter.

 

[Reformed]

If Scripture interpreted itself, then why would there be so many Protestants with wildly different interpretations over seemingly straightforward and obvious doctrines?

The authority was granted by Jesus Himself.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM

I have found multiple views on certain issues and scripture references by Roman Catholics on this site. Heck, the Catholic theologians cannot even agree what is the deposit of faith in regards to Sacred Tradition. What you stated about Protestants is the same for Catholics too.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Where does a person go to hear divine truth without error? Who and where is the supreme arbiter of truth?

1 Timothy 3:15:
which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[SIA]

I have found multiple views on certain issues and scripture references by Roman Catholics on this site. Heck, the Catholic theologians cannot even agree what is the deposit of faith in regards to Sacred Tradition. What you stated about Protestants is the same for Catholics too.

Amen.

 

[Reformed]

1 Timothy 3:15:
which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Church in this verse does mean the Roman Catholic Church. Does it say Roman Catholic Church in that verse? If there is only one church, why does Revelation speak of the seven churches? Even in the book of Revelation, the Roman Catholic Church is not even mentioned. What’s up with that?

Revelation 1:4

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,

Revelation 1:11
saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

 

[JMJ_coder]

I have found multiple views on certain issues and scripture references by Roman Catholics on this site. Heck, the Catholic theologians cannot even agree what is the deposit of faith in regards to Sacred Tradition. What you stated about Protestants is the same for Catholics too.

Read the Catechism - a sure norm for teaching the faith. There is no disagreement on the essentials of the faith among Catholic scholars (I’m not including dissidents in Catholic scholars).

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Impossible. The Church came before the Bible. The Bible as we have it today didn’t exist until around 382AD. That’s **350 **some years **after **the death of Christ!

I stand by my answer.

The pillar and bullwark of the truth is the univeral (catholic) church built upon the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

This apostolic church preached apostolic doctrine and focused on the good news of the Kingdom. The church was the custodian of these truths; hence she was the pillar and bullwark of the truth.

 

[Reformed]

Read the Catechism - a sure norm for teaching the faith. There is no disagreement on the essentials of the faith among Catholic scholars (I’m not including dissidents in Catholic scholars).

According to my research, the current edition of the Catholic Catechism has only been around since 1997. That’s not a very old source of Sacred Tradition, especially for claiming that the Roman Catholic Church goes back 2,000 years. What did Roman Catholics use to determine the deposit of faith before the 1997 Catholic Catechism?

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Church in this verse does mean the Roman Catholic Church. Does it say Roman Catholic Church in that verse? If there is only one church, why does Revelation speak of the seven churches?

The seven Churches are seven ancient Churches in Asia Minor which were under the care the Saint John. He wrote to those in his flock, those entrusted to his care, those seven Churches.

There is only one universal Catholic Church, which is comprised of many particular Churches (what we may call Dioceses).

CCC:

Each particular Church is “catholic”

832 "The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament… In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."312

833 The phrase “particular church,” which is the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."314

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315 "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."316 Indeed, "from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her."317

835 "Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or . . . the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she pub down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world."318 The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches "unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church."319

 

[Reformed]

The seven Churches are seven ancient Churches in Asia Minor which were under the care the Saint John. He wrote to those in his flock, those entrusted to his care, those seven Churches.

There is only one universal Catholic Church, which is comprised of many particular Churches (what we may call Dioceses).

CCC:

I’m catholic too.

 

[SIA]

The seven Churches are seven ancient Churches in Asia Minor which were under the care the Saint John. He wrote to those in his flock, those entrusted to his care, those seven Churches.

There is only one universal Catholic Church, which is comprised of many particular Churches (what we may call Dioceses).

CCC:

Oh my gosh, you can’t seriously believe that.

 

[JMJ_coder]

According to my research, the current edition of the Catholic Catechism has only been around since 1997. That’s not a very old source of Sacred Tradition, especially for claiming that the Roman Catholic Church goes back 2,000 years. What did Roman Catholics use to determine the deposit of faith before the 1997 Catholic Catechism?

I don’t even know where you are going with this? The Catechism is meant to aid in the instruction of Catholics. It doesn’t claim to be 2000 years old (nor does it need to be). Why would you think it needs to be ancient. Ultimately, it is the Bishop’s responsibility to instruct the faithful entrusted to his care. The Catechism is meant primarily as a tool for the Bishops to use. Read the letters and prologue to the Catechism.

Before the 1997 Catechism was the 1992 Catechism. Before that was the Trent Catechism (and Baltimore Catechism).

 

[JMJ_coder]

I’m catholic too.

In the sense that if you have been legitimately baptized, then you are baptized into the Catholic faith. Not in the sense that whatever denomination you belong to is a licit sui iuris Church.