Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[Cinette]

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.

I knew someone who believed in SS and SF and cheated on his wife, bullied other people and even cost a couple their business and retirement.

He and his wife were always saying “I know so and so is not saved” and things of this nature. He thought that it didn’t matter because he was “SAVED” and obviously didn’t believe in sin. That little four letter word of Luther has done tremendous damage and caused much confusion right up to today!

They were Lutherans and I do not put other Lutherans in the same basket because I know there are Lutherans and Lutherans and some are close to the one true Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have taken the position that sola scriptura is biblical, based upon scriptures own internal claims.

These claims include it bearing supreme witness to Christ’s redemptive history and the fact that the scriptures cannot be broken.

I have also supplied relevant scripture.

I have, therefore, answered your questions.

Ultimately, this question becomes a matter of faith. The discerning interpreter has to decide what is the nature and design of divine authority; where is it to be found? I humbly and graciously say that the Holy Spirit himself has given me great peace and conviction on this matter, viz: that the inerrant scriptures are the SUPREME STANDARD OF TRUTH IN ALL AGES OF HISTORY.

I realise you, along with other true Catholics, see this differently and hold that Christ instituted a teaching Magisterium to infallibly guide the church. I do not doubt your zeal in your intentions; however, I cannot agree.

The inward witness of the Holy Spirit has settled for me the authority, the inerrancy and the SUPREMACY of the scriptures.

I share large amounts of common ground with Catholics and appreciate many aspects of spirituality.

Craig, I have two questions for you. If you’ve already answered these in other posts, feel free to just give me the post numbers and I’ll read them.

1. What inconsistencies have you seen in infallible Catholic teaching?
2. What scriptures do you base your belief of Sola Scriptura on?

In addition to this, I’d like to just caution you, from my own personal experience, about the risks of relying too much on your own inward peace and spiritual experiences, with regard to your conviction in Sola Scriptura. I feel a similar peace – not only peace, great joy – in my conversion to Catholicism, and I feel from the Spirit great animosity toward the subjectivism inherent in the Sola Scriptura approach.

Those have been my personal experiences with the Spirit.

That is a serious problem with the Scripture + Spirit + Me approach- you get people with all kinds of contradictory experiences, interpretations and views.

When I was Protestant, I once had a threefold spiritual experience I thought was from God, in which I was told that all Eucharists are the same. As I became Catholic, I found that that relativistic view is utterly false. I have found that not only according to infallible Catholic teaching, but also in all my spiritual experiences. A couple nights ago, I had a dream from my Lord in which I fled from a church that had the Protestant Eucharist and ran to a church that had in it the Catholic Eucharist. There were lights shining at that church, in the dream, breaking through the dark of the night. Then I had additional spiritual experiences that morning from Jesus and Mary confirming the dream was from my Lord, and that its meanings were true.

I’ve just got to warn you about relying too much on spiritual experiences. They can lead in opposite directions sincere, devout Christians who both follow what they honestly believe the Bible’s meaning to be. That’s why there has to be an infallible standard against which spiritual experiences can be compared.

You would say that that is the Scripture. However, humans interpret the Scripture. They often interpret it incorrectly. Therefore we have the Spirit to guide us, you might say . . . but that’s where the Protestant argument becomes circular. Spirit interprets Scripture, because we can’t trust our human reasoning . . . but we can’t put our faith in spiritual experiences because they can lead incorrectly, so we compare them against the Scripture . . . but we can trust our interpretation of Scripture, so we rely on the spiritual experiences . . . Basically it comes out to: If our spiritual experiences and our interpretation of Scripture agree, we’ll believe it. BUT we know that spiritual experiences can have errors and our interpretations of Scripture have errors, so that whole structure of authority becomes fallible for us, in practical terms. Which doesn’t mean it has errors- it’s just that we can’t trust our conclusions about it, so its lack of errors doesn’t help us.

UNLESS God inspired His councils to be always completely correct . In which case, through them, we CAN know what the Scripture means without grotesque error shattering us into thousands of different denominations.

 

[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?

I would like to answer your question but first need to know what exactly is it that “many Catholics” reject in regard to Vat II?

 

[Cinette]

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.

SIA you did the right thing to leave the Catholic Church since you were not really Catholic after all.

If you doubt the Church then the honest thing to do is to leave. It is a pity but a fact nevertheless.

 

[Cinette]

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.

You confuse me Craig. You say you believe in Jesus but you do not seem to believe in what he teaches and his actions!!

You can stand on your head until the cows come home and you will still be wrong.

I will pray for you

 

[Cinette]

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:

There are hundreds of thousands of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC Churches throughout the world - all under the Vatican, all part of the Roman Catholic Church - hundreds and thousands of them!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Augustine was a Calvinist even before John Calvin was born.

Have you ever read Augustine’s On Free Choice of the Will? I promise you, that man was no Calvinist.

 

[dawid]

Sure they did. Your church erred with Galileo. They threatened to excommunicate him if he did not change his views which we know today was correct and the church wrong.

Your claim is an error commonly made - you have, like many others, been misled!

There were members within the Church that condemned his work, but it was not ex Cathedra.

Even Protestants had difficulty with his theories.
For the actual situation and events, please see the links below:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp
catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

I could bring up more serious issues than this to demonstrate your church has been wrong in the past.

Kindly submit these “more serious issues” for discussion.

 

[dawid]

By what standard do you doubt the truth and how do you measure your relative truth?

You know if you read Acts you will see a pure and beautiful believing society emerge. The 11 Apostles had accompanied Jesus and had experienced first hand his teachings, his miracles and his sacrifice. Peter, who was flawed was chosen and transformed at Pentecost. The Apostles were probably illeterate and yet managed to spread the message of the gospels throughout the world. They did not use intellectual arguments - it was their WITNESS. Furthermore every Pope of the first 300 years died martyrs - this was further witness that convinced many of the truth. The Early Church Fathers were a magnificent witness and propagated the Faith and FOUGHT heresay and continue to be a witness today and continue to fight heresay - even on these forums.

:whacky:

Either the Church fathers were sincere, or they were frauds, lying to all about the Gospel.

Frauds make poor martyrs, hence we may believe in their sincerity!

 

[JMJ_coder]

I’m afraid this is plainly evading the question.

Can somebody please answer my sincere question, as it was posed in context. There is no “theological game” or “one-upmanship” involved here. I am not interested in such trifles.

It is in the interest of all parties to discuss the issues. I have revealed my hand, I have nothing to hide.

I was answering to the post I quoted. If there is an earlier posted question that is needed for context, could you repost it (or at least tell me that original post). Otherwise I will easily get lost in this 700+ post thread.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The verse you have quoted is EXACTLY the answer to this sola scriptura discussion. It’s just that Catholics interpret it one way and I - as a Protestant - interpret it another.

Catholics take this verse to mean that the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. On this view, scripture and tradition comprise the teaching authority. Furthermore, the teaching authority is vested in the Pope and the Bishops (the Magisterium).

The view that I take - as a Protestant - is that all teaching authority comes from scripture alone (sola scriptura). The Bible itelf rejects a centralised authority and rejects extra-biblical traditions. It is this view that I believe is the will of God.

In adopting this position, however, I am grateful to God for the many Catholics who witness in word and deed to the life-changing power of the gospel. I am not hostile to Catholics.

On my view, then, 1 Timothy 3:15 bears this exegesis:

The universal (catholic) church which is built upon the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, is the custodian of the truth of the apostolic gospel. It is because all apostolic authority resides in scripture alone (sola scriptura) that the Church bears witness to the saving act of Christ on the cross and is - rightly - declared to be the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Well, I agree, we obviously disagree on the interpretation of that verse. Dr. Scott Hahn had this to say on that verse in his conversion story:

Another friend, a theologian, called me and said, “Scott, what is this I’m hearing that you’re considering the Catholic faith?” “Well, no, Art, I’m not really considering the Catholic faith.” Then I decided to pose him a question. I said, “Art, what for you is the pillar and foundation of truth?” And he said, “Scott, for all of us Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth.” I said, “Then why, Art, does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, the household of faith?” There was a silence and he said, “Well, Scott, I think you’re setting me up with that question then.” And I said, “Art, I feel like I’m being set up with lots of problems.” He said, “Well, which church, Scott? There are lots of them.” I said, “Art, how many churches are even applying for the job of being the pillar and foundation of truth? I mean, if you talk about a church saying, ‘We’re the pillar and foundation of truth; look to us and you will hear Christ speak and teach’? How many applicants for the job are there? I only know of one. I only know that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it was founded by Christ; it’s been around for 2000 years and it’s making some outlandish claims that seem awfully similar to 1 Timothy 3:15.”

 

[Lampo]

How many times has the pope spoken ex cathedra? What were the doctrines that he spoke of?

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

More can be found here.

 

[Lampo]

Can you please explain in more detail what the 22 rites of the Catholic are and where they may be found?

Are you still defending the position that the “Roman” aspect is the authentic, true church. May God bless you.

Rites.

Again, Jesus founded only one Church. This Church was named “Catholic” in the year 107AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch and the name stuck. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 Rites. The Latin Rite is just one and “Roman” is of that Rite.

 

[tGette]

I am slipping this in here since no one seems to like to post to my threads:

For those who adhere to Sola Scripture (or anyone), please explain the beginning of the Gospel according to Saint Luke:
**
(Chapter 1: Verses 1 - 4)**
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

My question:
What did Luke use for sole authority in his faith?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I am slipping this in here since no one seems to like to post to my threads:

For those who adhere to Sola Scripture (or anyone), please explain the beginning of the Gospel according to Saint Luke:
**
(Chapter 1: Verses 1 - 4)**
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

My question:
What did Luke use for sole authority in his faith?

I don’t think anyone makes the claim, or at least they shouldn’t, that sola scriptura was operative during the time the scriptures were being developed.

 

[guanophore]

Sadly it has not followed the Scriptures in a number of areas. Take this statement from the catechism:

"841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.“330”

How it can be said Musilims worship the same God when they outright deny the Trinty, that Christ is God and died for our sins?

It is odd that you should say that the Church “does not follow the Scriptures” with regard tos the sons of Abraham. I think if you take the time to read the Scriptures about Ishmael, it is clear that God has His eye upon Him, and made promises concerning Him. The fact that it has not become clear to Muslims that God is a Trinity is no different than faithful Jews, who do not recognize that Jesus is God. Do you think that, since Jews do not believe in the Trinity, or Christ, that they do not worship the same God?

Did you forget that salvation is of the Jews? The Jews and the Muslims both worship the God of Abraham, although imperfectly…

It is arrogant of us to try to determine who is God will save. We are to look to ourselves, and expend our energy fishing the log out of our own eye. Along those lines, you might wish to consider praying for the sons of Ishmael, instead of attacking the Catholic Church for our hope of their salvation.

Lets stay focussed for now on Musilims. If they deny the Trinity and Christ do you believe they are worshipping the same God as you and i?

\

As Jesus said of the Samaritans, who had only reveived part of the revelation of God:

John 4:20-24
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

They worship God according to the revelation they have received, which is limited.

Their situation is not unlike your own, since you have only received part of the revelation, so you can only worship according to the portion you have. Do you think you worship a “different” God, because you have only received part of the faith of the Apostles? Catholics would certianly not say that even though we would say that you don’t understand what Jesus meant when He said “worship in spirit and in Truth”.

 

[dawid]

I don’t think anyone makes the claim, or at least they shouldn’t, that sola scriptura was operative during the time the scriptures were being developed.

Sola Scriptura is a contradiction to what you claim.

The New and Old Testament are both products of sacred Tradition, sometimes being commited to the Bible many years after the events.

 

[RobHom]

The verse you have quoted is EXACTLY the answer to this sola scriptura discussion. It’s just that Catholics interpret it one way and I - as a Protestant - interpret it another.

I think there is a bit of a difference in viewpoints, that is to say, Catholics literally believe it, whereas Protestants use it for justification for 33,000 different denominations with “different interpretations” of scriptures. (Note: IF all Protestants agreed on the scriptures, there would only be ONE Protestant church, and yes even where the minor rift is between Rome and the Orthodox the same would apply.0

Catholics take this verse to mean that the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. On this view, scripture and tradition comprise the teaching authority. Furthermore, the teaching authority is vested in the Pope and the Bishops (the Magisterium).

The view that I take - as a Protestant - is that all teaching authority comes from scripture alone (sola scriptura). The Bible itelf rejects a centralised authority and rejects extra-biblical traditions. It is this view that I believe is the will of God.

I have never seen anything in the Bible that rejects the centralization of authority, or reject any traditions. Please provide proofs for your statements.

In adopting this position, however, I am grateful to God for the many Catholics who witness in word and deed to the life-changing power of the gospel. I am not hostile to Catholics.

We are grateful that you are as your are.

On my view, then, 1 Timothy 3:15 bears this exegesis:

The universal (catholic) church which is built upon the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, is the custodian of the truth of the apostolic gospel. It is because all apostolic authority resides in scripture alone (sola scriptura) that the Church bears witness to the saving act of Christ on the cross and is - rightly - declared to be the pillar and foundation of the truth.

A slightly different view:

From here: drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm

Scripture:
**15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Meaning:
15 “The pillar and ground of the truth”… Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. **

Actually, considering the overall import of that chapter, it would appear that it gets into staffing of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

How is believing the Scriptures to be inspired-inerrant

This is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. As such, it is a truth that has it’s origin in God, not in man.

and the sole authority a non biblical tradition of men?

This part is a tradition of men, invented by men in the 1500’s as an replacement to depart from the authority appointed by Christ, because they considered that authority corrupt and in need of replacement by some better authority.

The scriptures do not say this about themselves, and it was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

Secondly, when Jesus defended His teachings or engaged Satan what did He use?

Jesus demonstrated, throughout HIs ministry, how the scriptures were to be used. At the end of His days on earth, He build a Church, and appointed His Aposltes to it’s authority. If He wanted to invest authority in a book, He would have done so.

 

[guanophore]

We all know the Church sins.

Such a statement reveals a deficient conception of the Church. The reason that the Holy Bride of Christ cannot sin is because her Head is Christ,and she is ensould by the HS. It is these divine elements of the Church that make her infallible and pure, not the fallen men who are attached to her (and are prone to falling away!). To lay the sins of men to the fault of Christ is wrong.

It is what they do with that sin and how it follows the instruction given in the Bible that we are talking about. The Church is to expose the deeds of darkness not cover them up. When we renew our baptismal vows we promise to have nothing to do with Satan and his ways. It loses something when the Church does the opposite of the profession it imposes on the faithful.

I agree that the Church is wounded when we sin. Paul was clear about this when he spoke of the grave consequences to the Body when sinful men joined themselves to prostitutes. However, even such grave sin does not nullify the purity for which Christ died.